업무정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court’s judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) C works as a caregiver from March 2013 to January 2014, 2014, and from March 2014 to May 2015, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) indicated in C’s labor contract as “the position is a caregiver,” and only shared cooking work with other caregivers during that period, and did not take full charge of cooking work. Nevertheless, C’s preparation of a confirmation document to the effect that he takes full charge of cooking work is erroneous in ascertaining whether the purpose of the visit and answer by the public official in charge of the investigation is faithfully performed, and due to the on-site investigation, it was prepared as a public official in charge of investigation. Therefore, the value of the said confirmation document cannot be recognized, and the instant disposition is unlawful because the Defendant already knew of the circumstances that the caregiver takes full charge of cooking work at the instant sanatorium, and thus, was unlawful.
B. 1) Determination C’s written labor contract on the first argument cannot be deemed as having actually worked as a caregiver by itself, and even if the content of the evidence No. 5-2, C is examined, it is difficult to see that C was misunderstanding the public official’s purpose of visit and answer, and even if he/she misunderstanding the purport of the answer, he/she would be in charge of the main work not in charge.