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

A. On December 5, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired the qualification as a certified labor affairs consultant, and on July 10, 2006, registered the commencement of duties to the Minister of Labor (the present Minister of Employment and Labor).

B. On June 18, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the following facts are recognized and they violate Article 13 subparag. 1 and Article 12(1) of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act” against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) under Article 20 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act.

(1) On September 2, 2011, when claiming a substitute payment by B (hereinafter referred to as “B”) on behalf of the representative director and subcontractor, personal constructor, etc., the subcontractor and individual constructor who are not entitled to a substitute payment by preparing and submitting a false statement of labor cost payment, personal information, and overdue payment amount to 178 persons in total to receive the substitute payment amounting to 765,370,590 won (hereinafter referred to as “Disciplinary cause”; ② On October 21, 2011, the person who is not subject to a substitute payment by proxy of C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) should be in collusion with the representative director and subcontractor, the representative director and the individual constructor, and the employees belonging to the subcontractor who are not subject to a substitute payment by preparing and submitting a false statement of labor expense payment, personal information, and personal information, but the person who is not subject to a substitute payment by submitting a false statement of labor expense to 170 persons who are subject to a substitute payment by 60 persons who are not subject to a substitute payment, 160 persons who will be able to file a false substitute payment.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1, 3, and 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

There is no reason for the disciplinary action in this case, since the plaintiff did not invite the representative director of B, etc., the subcontractor representative, the personal constructor, etc. to receive the substitute payment.

Even if a part of the grounds for the instant disciplinary action is recognized, in view of the fact that the Plaintiff intentionally obtained substitute payment, not intentionally, but commits such misconduct in the course of handling a lot of affairs on behalf of many workers, compared to the determination of disciplinary actions in similar cases, the instant disciplinary action goes against equity and results in the deprivation of the Plaintiff’s means of maintaining his livelihood due to the instant disciplinary action, there is an error of deviation and abuse of discretionary authority.

3. Determination

A. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Facts of recognition

1) As to the grounds for disciplinary action

A) On December 17, 2010, B did not pay the construction cost to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”). Accordingly, F (E) and G (B) requested substitute payment under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act under the name of a person who does not directly operate the E Co., Ltd. or who does not have any overdue wage (hereinafter “E workers”).

B) Around January 201, F entered into a direct labor supply contract with E and hired daily workers, and compiled a copy of the resident registration of E workers through individual constructors and subcontractors’ representatives, etc. who provide labor at the construction site, and followed H (E employees) by preparing a “the quarterly wage ledger of April 4, 2010” based on the data, etc. and delivering it to G.

C) Afterwards, G reported the details of daily employment insurance, daily employment income, as if the E workers listed in the above wage ledger were employees B, to the effect that they were employed by B, and then prepared a statement of payment of daily labor expenses, and then delivered it to the Plaintiff with relevant materials, etc. On April 27, 2011, G filed a complaint related to delayed payment against J (B representative director) with the Seoul Western Employment and Labor Branch Office, and stated to the effect that the content of the delayed payment of the above wage ledger was all true by attending the said labor branch office.

D) On September 2, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Seoul Western Labor Branch Office for a substitute payment of KRW 765,370,590 in total in the name of E workers, and received substitute payment from E workers around September 8, 2011.

(2) As to the grounds for disciplinary action

A) While C (Representative L) was unable to pay the construction cost of approximately KRW 1.2 billion to M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”), C (representative L) was in defaulted on and around September 2, 2010, and the rehabilitation procedure commenced around September 16, 2010.

B) On August 201, the Plaintiff and K (M real managers) filed a claim for substitute payment and agreed to recover part of the work price for M with respect to the Plaintiff and K (M). On August 201, K collected data necessary for the claim for substitute payment, such as the relationship between himself and his employees, a copy of the identification card of his employees, and the head of the Tong (hereinafter collectively referred to as “M workers”), around August 201. However, M workers were not directly managed by C, but did not have any work provided at the work site of C.

C) In addition, upon the Plaintiff’s recommendation, K completed a report on confirmation of the details of employment insurance and industrial accident insurance with C in the name of M workers, and completed L’s order to affix C’s seal impression to C’s report. Around that time, K reported the purchase of employment insurance for the M workers from June to August 2010.

D) On September 5, 2011, the Plaintiff prepared a written petition to the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency that the delayed payment of the C’s wages to M workers reaches KRW 177,770,000,000. On October 21, 201 and October 31, 2011, the Plaintiff claimed reimbursement of KRW 166,986,960 in total in the name of M workers on his/her behalf. However, since it was clearly stated that M workers are not employees of Section in the process of examining substitute payments, the Plaintiff did not actually receive the substitute payment.

(3) As to the grounds for disciplinary action

A) Around March 2, 2011, D had not paid the construction price to E, etc. Around March 2, 2011. Accordingly, D (D representative director) and P (D managing director) requested a substitute payment under the name of a person who is not directly operated by D or who is not in arrears with D (hereinafter “E”) or under the name of a person who is not in arrears with D (hereinafter “workers, etc.”), and paid the construction

B) On April 201, P collected resident registration copies, copies, seals, etc. of E, etc. of individual constructors and subcontractors, and requested the Plaintiff to apply for substitute payment by delivering documents, etc. Accordingly, the Plaintiff: (a) made a wage ledger including the fact that employees, such as E, are in arrears with wages as employees belonging to D; and (b) made Q Qu to report the details of the daily employment insurance for the relevant employees retroactively on May 26, 201.

C) From August 31, 201 to September 2, 2011, the Plaintiff requested the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency for the payment of the total amount of KRW 1,686,917,000 on behalf of employees, including E, in the name of his/her employees (the submission was made around November 16, 201, to the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency to confirm that the actual amount of delayed payment of wages of employees, including E, was true. However, since it was revealed that employees, such as E, were not direct employees of D in the process of examining substitute payment, the Plaintiff did not actually receive the substitute payment.

4) Relevant criminal judgments, etc.

A) (1) With respect to the grounds for disciplinary action, G (B) was convicted on July 10, 2014 of fraud and wage claim reporting law (Seoul Central District Court 2014Kadan2823), and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 18, 2014. In addition, F (E) was convicted of the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (Seoul Central District Court 2014 Gohap94), and its judgment became final and conclusive on August 29, 2015. Meanwhile, on November 13, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed on the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (Seoul High Court 2015Hun-Ga154) but it is difficult for the Prosecutor to have appealed the judgment to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that he/she had made a request for substitute payment by deception with GF, etc.

B) (2) With respect to the grounds for disciplinary action, K (M) was convicted of having attempted fraud and having violated the Wage Claim Guarantee Act on November 19, 2014 (Seoul Western District Court 2014Kadan1308), and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 27, 2014. Meanwhile, on November 13, 2015, the Plaintiff was convicted of the facts charged against C related to the fraud (one year of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) and the appeal court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 18, 2016.

C) In relation to the grounds for disciplinary action, the U.S. (D representative director) was convicted of having attempted fraud on February 5, 2015 and having violated the Act on Guarantee of Wage Claim Guarantee (Seoul Central District Court 2014dan1645). The judgment became final and conclusive on February 13, 2015. Moreover, F (E) was convicted of having committed an offense in violation of the Act on Guarantee of Wage Claim Guarantee and on August 21, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 29, 2015. Meanwhile, on July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition by a public prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff participated in the act of improper receipt of substitute payment such as zero, etc., on the grounds that “the Plaintiff is insufficient to prove that the Plaintiff participated in the act of improper receipt of substitute payment.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Whether the grounds for the instant disciplinary action are recognized

(1) Article 12(1) of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act provides that "No practicing labor attorney shall always maintain dignity, and perform his/her duties fairly with good faith." Article 13 subparagraph 1 of the same Act provides that "no practicing labor attorney shall allow a client to obtain financial benefits, such as insurance money, under labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, or not to pay insurance premiums and perform any other monetary obligation, by fraud or other improper means." Article 20(1) provides that "where a practicing labor attorney violates Article 12, the duty of good faith, etc. under Article 12 (5) and the prohibition under any subparagraph of Article 13 (subparagraph 6), etc., of a practicing labor attorney, he/she shall be subject to disciplinary action."

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff, in collusion with K, etc., received part of the construction cost for M as substitute payment and applied for substitute payment in the name of M workers to the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office, but it was revealed that M workers were not C by the public official in charge, and that the worker was not actually paid the substitute payment. This constitutes grounds for disciplinary action prescribed in Articles 12(1), 13 subparag. 1, and 20(1) of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act.

2) ① With respect to grounds for disciplinary action: Not recognized.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff, like in the case of C, comprehensively reviewed and dealt with the claim for substitute payment under B and D, and that the company-related persons were convicted of committing a crime such as a substitute payment's illegal receipt of substitute payment, there is a doubt that the Plaintiff may be involved in the illegal receipt of substitute payment in collusion with them.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of innocence or suspicion in the criminal procedures related to the grounds for disciplinary action, and the materials submitted by the Defendant alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff requested substitute payment for the relevant company in collusion with the persons related to B, D, representatives of subcontractors, personal constructors, etc.

D. Whether the instant disciplinary action deviates from or abused discretion

1) Whether to impose a disciplinary measure on a person subject to disciplinary action for the reason of the disciplinary measure is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take a disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretionary authority has considerably lost validity under the social norms and thus it is deemed unlawful. To deem that the disciplinary measure has lost validity under the social norms, the disciplinary measure should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure, the administrative purpose to achieve the disciplinary measure, the criteria for the determination of the disciplinary measure, etc., where the content of the disciplinary measure can be objectively and objectively deemed unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6620, Sept. 24, 2002).

In addition to the records of a disciplinary action against a person subject to disciplinary action, the facts of misconduct committed before and after the relevant disciplinary action is also considered reference materials in the determination of disciplinary action. In a case where it is sufficient to recognize the validity of the relevant disciplinary action only for some other grounds recognized as not recognized as a part of multiple grounds for disciplinary action, it is not illegal even if the relevant disciplinary action is maintained as it is (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da51555, Jun. 25, 2004).

2) Relevant legal principles, the evidence mentioned earlier, and the following circumstances revealed through the overall purport of oral proceedings:

In full view of the facts and decisions, even considering the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, the disciplinary action in this case cannot be deemed to have been deviates from and abused discretion, as it considerably lacks validity under social norms.

A) The Wage Claim Guarantee Act aims to contribute to the stabilization of workers’ livelihood by providing measures to guarantee the payment of wages, etc. to workers retired without receiving wages, etc. due to business fluctuations, changes in industrial structure, etc.

B) Although the Plaintiff, as a certified labor affairs consultant who is an expert in labor-related affairs, bears the public duty to contribute to the promotion of the welfare of workers and the sound development of enterprises, it is intended to take advantage of the fact that the substitute payment system and the process of paying the payment, thereby receiving a large amount of substitute payment through a leading public contest with the relevant persons of the company, etc., the degree of the misconduct is serious and the possibility of social criticism is significant.

C) Among the grounds for the instant disciplinary action: (ii) even if the grounds for the disciplinary action are not recognized, the Plaintiff’s overall review and process of the Plaintiff’s claim for substitute payment B and D as in the instant case of C; (iii) the company-related persons were convicted of committing a crime such as a substitute payment’s illegal receipt of substitute payment; and (iv) a large amount of substitute payment to false workers was actually paid; and (v) there is occupational negligence not sufficiently ascertaining whether the Plaintiff is a person eligible for substitute payment in the course of performing his/her duties. At this point, there is considerable room to deem that the Plaintiff

D) Article 20(3) of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act only provides for the cancellation of registration as a type of disciplinary action, suspension of duties for not more than three years, suspension of duties for not more than 10 million won, and reprimand, and does not provide a separate criteria for the determination of disciplinary action. Meanwhile, in a case where the judgment of conviction related to C related to the instant disciplinary action (for example of execution) becomes final and conclusive separately from the suspension or invalidation of the instant disciplinary action, the registration of certified public labor attorney is revoked pursuant to Articles

E) The Plaintiff asserts that the degree of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff is excessive in comparison with the case similar to the instant case (the case cited by the Plaintiff is not identical to the instant case in terms of frequency of the act of misconduct, number of false workers, amount of a claim for substitute payment, amount of criminal punishment, etc., and the same circumstance alone cannot be readily concluded that the instant disciplinary action is unlawful beyond the equity.

F) The public interest, such as the proper operation of the substitute payment system to be achieved through the instant disciplinary action, the eradication of fraudulent act by a certified labor affairs consultant and the recovery of national trust, cannot be deemed to be less than the disadvantage that the Plaintiff would incur due to such disciplinary action (the Plaintiff is not permanently unable to perform the duties of a certified labor affairs consultant, but re-registered after a certain period of time has elapsed).

E. Sub-committee

As seen above, the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized and the determination of disciplinary action is appropriate, so the instant disciplinary action is lawful.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that there are no grounds.

Judges Gambling Residents

Judges Kim Gin-han

A person shall be appointed.