2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Suspension of service and retirement notification of the Plaintiff Company

(1) On January 31, 2007, the Plaintiff Company engaged in the taxi transport business concluded a contract in the form of a daily work contract from September 7, 2005, with respect to B, who served as a daily worker as a Spain engineer, the Plaintiff Company received the notice of time on the ground of the violation of uniforms and the assault against C, who is a cab engineer, on the ground of the violation of uniforms around January 31, 2007, and received the notice of time on the form of resignation, with the reason for resignation and the date of resignation blank.

(2) While there was a conflict between the Plaintiff Company and the Plaintiff Company due to the difference between the Plaintiff Company and the labor union established around June 2007 (B) and the Plaintiff Company’s opinion on the recognition of the labor union and the labor conditions, the Plaintiff Company was subject to disciplinary action of suspending service on the ground that the Plaintiff Company was unable to take part in the Plaintiff Company’s representative director on July 20, 2007 on the ground that “B was unable to take part in the ship on July 6, 2007.”

(3) On August 20, 2007, B, after the completion of the period of suspension of service on board, went to work for three to four times on board and requested the Plaintiff company to dispatch the vehicle, but failed to receive the dispatch. From August 30, 2007 to December 2007, B operated the taxi by driving the taxi on the Francing cab working as an E company’s driver during the Franc working hours. From October 1, 2008, B was serving as a taxi engineer in G stock company.

(4) On October 18, 2007, the Plaintiff Company made a decision inside and outside to treat B as retirement on the grounds of the letter of resignation prepared and submitted by B as above and Article 38 of the Rules of Employment (the content thereof is as follows). On October 24, 2007, and on October 26, 2007, the Plaintiff Company notified B that B was dismissed on October 10, 2007, despite receiving a request for reinstatement from B.

[Employment Rules]

Article 38 (Retirement) Where any of the following grounds arises, the retirement shall be the case: 1. When a person submits a retirement center; 5. Where a person fails to submit a reinstatement within seven days after the period of temporary retirement expires or the ground for temporary retirement ceases to exist:

(b) The progress of an adjudication of unfair dismissal and appeal litigation;

(1) On November 8, 2007, B filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Defendant. On January 3, 2008, the Defendant recognized that the suspension of the above service on board and the notice of retirement (in response to dismissal) were unfair disciplinary actions. At the same time, B issued a remedy order ordering the Plaintiff Company to return from office and pay the amount equivalent to wages to the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant remedy order”).

On October 29, 2007, the dismissal and suspension of service performed by the Plaintiff to B is an unfair disciplinary measure.The Plaintiff would immediately restore B to its original position (within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written adjudication) and pay the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been received if the Plaintiff had worked during the period of suspension and dismissal of service.

(2) On February 1, 2008, the Plaintiff Company appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 1, 2008, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff Company’s application for reexamination on April 18, 2008. (3) On May 15, 2009, the Seoul District Court, which was the first instance court, filed an appeal against the said decision for reexamination. On May 15, 2009, the said notice of retirement was unfair, and the Seoul District Court, which was the first instance court, dismissed the Plaintiff Company’s claim on the ground that the decision for reexamination was lawful (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2008Guhap2174), and the Seoul High Court, which was the second instance court, also dismissed the Plaintiff Company’s appeal on April 8, 2010 (Seoul High Court Decision 2009Du16505). At present, the Plaintiff Company was dissatisfied with the said judgment and filed an appeal for enforcement fine under the Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8218.

(1) Under Article 33(1) of the Labor Standards Act, the Defendant imposed KRW 8,00,000 for non-performance penalty on April 2008, and KRW 10,000 for non-performance penalty on November 2008, and KRW 13,000 for non-performance penalty on May 2009, respectively, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the instant order for remedy.

(2) On October 22, 2009, the Defendant issued an additional disposition imposing KRW 17,000,000 for compelling the performance (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff, who did not pay the enforcement fine imposed by the Plaintiff without complying with the instant order for remedy.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 9, 20 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff company asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) The instant disposition is unlawful as it is based on the instant order for remedy, which is unlawful as follows. A. B is merely a daily worker, and thus, the instant order for remedy is unlawful and unfair in light of the following: (a) upon the expiration of the relevant contract period, the labor contract relationship between B and the Plaintiff Company is terminated as a matter of course; (b) the Plaintiff Company is not a notification of retirement on the ground of the written resignation submitted by B; (c) the said resignation was voluntarily prepared; and (d) the Plaintiff Company did not have any intention of reinstatement to the Plaintiff Company after being subject to the suspension of service on board; and (b) the Plaintiff’s notification of retirement to B is not unfair. Therefore, the instant order for remedy, which is premised on the fact that the said notification is unfair. However, the part ordering B to pay the amount equivalent to the wages to B in the instant order for remedy is not specified in the amount equivalent to the wages that the Plaintiff

(2) The Plaintiff Company cannot be deemed to have failed to comply with the instant order for remedy for the following reasons. Therefore, the instant disposition that is based on the premise that the Plaintiff Company failed to comply with the instant order for remedy is unlawful.

(A) On April 5, 2008, after the notice of retirement to B, the Plaintiff Company abolished the Spanish engineer system, which is a primary employee, from April 2008 to April 5, 2008, and thus, it is impossible to restore B to Spanish engineer. Accordingly, among the instant remedy order, the order of reinstatement cannot be executed itself. Moreover, since the Plaintiff Company notified B of reinstatement on June 3, 2009, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff Company failed to comply with the order of reinstatement during the instant remedy order. In addition, the part ordering B to pay the amount equivalent to the amount of the wage to be paid to B is not specified, and the Plaintiff Company obtained profits from other employees during the period of dismissal, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff Company failed to comply with the order of reinstatement equivalent to the wage of the instant remedy order. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff Company failed to comply with the order of this case.

(3) The instant disposition is too harsh compared to the Plaintiff’s non-performance of duties.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table shall be as follows.

C. Determination on the first argument

(1) Since the instant remedy order, as an administrative act, has a fair power to deny its binding force until the order is revoked by a disposition agency or a court or other competent agency, even if it is unlawful due to the defect in the instant remedy order, it does not constitute an unlawful disposition of this case, which was issued without complying with the instant remedy order, unless it is serious and obvious that it does not constitute an invalidation.

With respect to this case, since the defects of the disposition of this case can not be deemed null and void due to the significant and apparent reasons as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit. In particular, in the case of the order to pay the amount equivalent to wages which are not specified, the order of this case is realized by the employer’s act, and its contents are not necessary to be excessively strict interpretation. Thus, the order of this case’s relief is not necessary. ② The employer appears to be able to easily calculate the amount equivalent to wages which would have been received if the work was normally provided during the unfair dismissal period based on the average wage. ③ The specific amount of the objectively reasonable amount of wages can only be determined by the agreement between the parties or civil litigation, ④ The specific amount of the amount of the amount equivalent to wages can only be determined by the agreement between the parties, ④ the time is likely to be delayed until the issuance of the order of relief in the process of specifying the amount of the amount of wages. This cannot be said to be unlawful in view of the circumstances such as the fact that the order of this case’s daily life and simple resolution is contrary to the legislative intent.

D. Judgment on the second argument

(1) Whether the order of reinstatement is not complied with

In full view of the overall purport of arguments in Gap 13, 15 through 21, Eul 6 through 8 (including various numbers), the plaintiff company operated the Spanish engineer system in the past. However, on March 2008, the plaintiff company received a public notice from the Ministry of Government Legislation that "if it conducts daily or monthly contracted taxi business, it constitutes a violation of the prohibition of use of name under Article 13 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, it shall be deemed that the Spanish engineer system will be the same as that of the contracted taxi business, and if it fails to submit the Spanish engineer system to 0.0 on March 12, 2008, the plaintiff company shall submit the 100 Spanish engineer system to 6.0 on the 6.0 Spanish engineer who wants to be converted to regular taxi engineer, and the plaintiff company shall also submit the 100 Spanish engineer system to 6.0 on the 6.0th day after submitting the 20th day public notice system as required by the plaintiff company.

The following circumstances acknowledged based on the above facts, and ① although the Plaintiff Company abolished the daily work Spanish engineer system, which was a member of the Plaintiff Company B, it would prevent the Plaintiff Company from returning B to full-time taxi engineer, it appears that the Plaintiff Company intended to interfere with the restoration of Spain merely on the premise that the Plaintiff Company failed to submit the above documents, and ③ in light of the fact that the Plaintiff Company could not be seen as being subject to the order for remedy rather than the previous order for remedy in light of the fact that the Plaintiff Company could not only be subject to the order for remedy in this case, but also the Plaintiff Company could not be subject to the cancellation of the order for remedy in this case.

In addition, it is recognized that the Plaintiff Company, as a matter of course, has to reinstate B, which cannot be called a new recruitment, as a regular taxi engineer, was requested to submit documents that B could not immediately submit, and did not actually perform the duty of reinstatement.

(2) Whether payment order equivalent to wages is not complied with

As seen earlier, it is not impossible for the Plaintiff Company to calculate and pay the amount equivalent to the wages during the period of dismissal to B as seen earlier, and ② wages paid to an employee who was dismissed due to a cause attributable to the employer for reasons attributable to the employer to work in another workplace during the period of dismissal are profits derived from the discharge of his/her own obligations under Article 538(2) of the Civil Act, and thus, the employer constitutes a benefit arising from the employee’

Although such profits can be deducted in the payment of wages, it is recognized that the plaintiff company failed to comply with the order to pay the amount equivalent to the wages of this case among the relief order of this case, in light of the fact that the plaintiff company did not make any effort to calculate and pay the amount equivalent to the wages of this case to B, and rather it seems that the plaintiff company would only wait for the cancellation of the relief order of this case through an appeal litigation, in addition, it is recognized that the plaintiff company failed to comply with the order to pay the amount equivalent to the wages of this case among the relief order of this case.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate on the premise that the Plaintiff Company did not comply with the order for remedy of this case, and the above assertion by the Plaintiff Company is without merit.

E. Judgment on the third argument

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff Company failed to comply with the instant remedy order at all for more than two years after receiving the instant remedy order; the Plaintiff Company only waitings for the cancellation of the remedy order through an appeal litigation against the instant remedy order, and appears to have no intention to implement the instant remedy order; and the Defendant already imposed a non-performance penalty on three occasions for the funeral of the instant remedy order, but the Plaintiff Company did not comply with the instant remedy order and did not pay the non-performance penalty already imposed on it; in light of all circumstances, the instant disposition issued by the Defendant cannot be deemed excessive to the Plaintiff Company.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yellow Senior Superintendent

Judges Min Jong-nam

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.