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

A. On April 17, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the status of non-professional employment (E-9) status as an alien of Bangladesh-si nationality, and thereafter from that time, the Plaintiff agreed to enter into an employment contract while working in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and retired from the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd on May 31, 2016.

B. On June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for change of place of business. Accordingly, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a certificate of foreign job-seeking registration with the term of validity of the registration of job-seeking from June 3, 2016 to September 3, 2016. However, the said certificate of foreign job-seeking registration contains the following information.

According to Article 25(3) of the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers (hereinafter “Foreign Workers Employment Act”), a person who fails to obtain permission to change his/her place of work under Article 21 of the Immigration Control Act within three months from the date of application for change of his/her place of work, or who fails to file an application for change of his/her place of work within one month from the date of termination of the labor contract (Recognition of an exception to occupational accidents, diseases, pregnancy, childbirth, etc.). The Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea from June 5, 2016 to July 31, 2016 when the term of validity of the registration of a job seeking was valid to request the Defendant to mediate his/her place of work on August 1, 2016, and was extended from September 3, 2016 to September 5, 2016 (the term of validity of the registration of a job seeking to be extended from September 16, 2016).

D. On September 5, 2016, the expiration date of the term of validity of the registration of job seeking, the Plaintiff sent an interview with the representative of D who was arranged by the Defendant on September 5, 2016, but on the same day, the Plaintiff was not employed in all of the above 16 workplaces by being notified that there was no intention of employment at around 18

E. On September 22, 2016, when D was deprived of the opportunity to receive good offices due to delayed response to the absence of intention of employment due to the fact that D was imminent between the watch surveillance, the Plaintiff filed an application for extension of the period of business change with the Defendant on September 22, 2016. However, on September 27, 2016, the Defendant sent a reply to the Plaintiff for extension due to the reason that the Plaintiff does not constitute the grounds for extension of the period of business change (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (f) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on February 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On September 5, 2016, the Plaintiff appeared to have an interview in D, but at around 18:00, the Plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to receive good offices by being notified of the absence of the intention of employment. Since the period of workplace change was exceeded due to a cause not attributable to the Plaintiff, it can be evaluated that there is an inevitable reason under the proviso of Article 25(3) of the Foreign Employment Act, but the instant disposition denying the extension of the period of workplace change is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) A foreign worker’s restriction on the period of change of the place of business under Article 25(3) of the Foreign Workers Employment Act, along with the frequency of change of the place of business under Article 25(4) of the same Act, has an indirect effect of restricting the number of changes in the place of business and the relocation of foreign workers outside the country. As a result, the purpose of promoting efficient employment management is to protect the employment opportunities of domestic workers and prevent foreign workers who have entered the place of business for employment purposes from staying in the country without any intention to work in the workplace or by preventing them from staying in the country without any intention to work in the workplace (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order 2009Hun-Ma351, Sept. 29, 2011). If the period of change of the place of business is recognized without any restriction without any restriction, the basic framework of the Foreign Workers Employment Act, which is premised on a short-term stay within three years in principle, in order to prevent foreign workers from staticization of the place of business.

2) The proviso of Article 25(3) of the Foreign Employment Act provides that "if a foreign worker is unable to obtain permission to change his/her workplace due to occupational accident, disease, pregnancy, childbirth, etc., the period of change of the workplace shall be calculated from the date such cause ceases to exist (hereinafter referred to as "the proviso of this case"). The following circumstances, which can be recognized by the legislative intent of Article 25(3) of the Foreign Employment Act, the relevant statutes, the evidence and the entire purport of oral argument, are as follows: ① Occupational accident, disease, pregnancy, and childbirth stipulated in the proviso of this case, are reasons for the physical or health condition of a worker who is unrelated to the cause of the employer. Thus, the proviso of this case provides that where a foreign worker cannot obtain permission to change his/her workplace due to reasons such as occupational accident, health, etc., or it is impossible to obtain permission to change his/her workplace due to lack of such reasons; ② The plaintiff cannot obtain permission to change his/her workplace within the period of validity due to delay of entry into the workplace until his/her last change of employment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.