2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

On April 28, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the application for difference in childcare leave benefits filed against the Plaintiff on April 28, 2014 is revoked.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following to the 3th written judgment of the first instance and adding the 8th "certificate" to the 3th judgment of the second instance. Thus, the court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (the 3th judgment of the first instance to the 3th judgment of the second instance). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

E. On December 18, 2013, prior to the change of the standard for calculating ordinary wages, the Ministry of Employment and Labor amended the work process guidelines to pay the difference between the childcare leave calculated including bonus, etc. and the already paid childcare leave benefits in accordance with the changed standard for calculating the ordinary wages if three years have not elapsed. Accordingly, the Defendant additionally paid KRW 4,048,200 for 12 months from May 12, 2011 to May 11, 2012, when the instant lawsuit was pending in this court, to the Plaintiff on May 12, 2012.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

ex officio, in light of the facts as seen earlier, the Defendant had been pending in the instant lawsuit.

In accordance with the changed ordinary wage calculation standard on November 24, 2015, an additional payment of KRW 4,048,200 to the Plaintiff for the difference with the already paid temporary retirement benefits based on the difference between the temporary retirement benefits and the temporary retirement benefits already paid, thereby voluntarily correcting the disposition to return the difference in the temporary retirement benefits in this case (it does not dispute the above amount). Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the above return disposition is deemed to have become extinct.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as it is unlawful, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it shall be revoked and it shall be so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Jong-dae

Judge Lee Jae-soo