beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.11.14 2018구합910

이행강제금부과결정처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was a taxi cooperative established based on the Framework Act on Cooperatives, and was expelled from B and C through the general assembly process on September 5, 2017.

B. B and C filed an application for the suspension of work on board and the relief of unfair dismissal with the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission. On November 30, 2017, the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission issued a remedy order with respect to the cancellation of work on board, the reinstatement of work on board, and the payment equivalent to wages (hereinafter “instant remedy order”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the suspension of work on board, the cancellation of the suspension of work on board, the reinstatement of work on board, and the expulsion of work on the part of the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission is practically subject to disciplinary action, notwithstanding the fact that the suspension of work on board and the expulsion of work on the part of the Plaintiff

On January 5, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above order of remedy and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on January 5, 2018. On February 2, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted to the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission a notice of the result of the implementation of the order of remedy with the purport that the order of remedy is in progress

C. On February 5, 2018, the Defendant issued the first notice of imposition of enforcement fines to the Plaintiff, and the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on March 14, 2018.

As the Plaintiff failed to comply with the remedy order, on March 20, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision on the imposition of enforcement fines of KRW 13,200,000 on the ground of the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the complete remedy order.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The plaintiff was served with a written decision on review by the National Labor Relations Commission and did not institute an administrative litigation within 15 days, and the remedy order was finalized.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is a cooperative established on the basis of the Framework Act on Cooperatives, not a general taxi company, and thus it is difficult to recognize the employee status of the Plaintiff, and that B and C were expelled by the vote of the members.