Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 through 5, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 7-2 through 6, Eul evidence 1 through 5-3, Eul evidence 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence 6 and 7, and testimony of non-party 1 and 2 are as follows:

(1) On October 29, 1992, the Plaintiff obtained permission for fee-charging job placement services from the Chuncheon market as a permitted number 92-4, and from that time, from that point of view, the Plaintiff was hired Nonparty 3 as the office manager in the name of the Plaintiff’s vocational guidance office and operated a fee-charging job placement service. Nonparty 3 was notified of the above crimes committed by Nonparty 3 during the investigation of the investigation of the case on May 14, 1993 from January 15 to March 12 of the same year by the trade name (trade name omitted) between Nonparty 1 and the (trade name omitted).

(2) On June 30, 1993, the Chuncheon District Prosecutors' Office, which received the above case from the head of the Chuncheon Police Station, prosecuted the plaintiff and non-party 3 on violation of the Employment Security and Employment Promotion Act, and notified the defendant on July 11 of the same year. On August 11 of the same year, the defendant, upon receipt of such notification, issued a disposition of business suspension as stated in the purport of the purport of the disposition of suspension of indefinite business from August 13, 1993 to the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"), pursuant to Article 23 (3) of the Regulations on the Handling of Affairs of Permission for and Introduction of Job Placement Services.

2. Whether the disposition of revocation is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

As to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above grounds of disposition and applicable provisions of law, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

(1) Although Nonparty 3, an employee of the Plaintiff, received the request from Nonparty 1 and 4, who operated the main points four times from January 15, 1993 to March 12, 1993, introduced female employees and received only the prescribed charges determined by the Minister of Labor, the Defendant, despite the fact that Nonparty 1 and 4 paid to female employees living in other regions at the time, was erroneous that Nonparty 3 was the additional charges other than the prescribed charges, and thus, it is unlawful.

(2) Even if it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s domestic affairs violated the laws and regulations, the instant disposition is too heavy in light of the content and degree of the relevant offense, and is an unlawful disposition that deviates from the scope of discretion.

B. Relevant statutes and their interpretation

Article 10 (1) of the Employment Security and Employment Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4135, Jun. 16, 1989; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "a person who intends to conduct fee-charging placement service shall obtain permission from the Minister of Labor; a person who conducts fee-charging placement service with permission under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall not collect money or goods other than fees determined by the Minister of Labor; Article 19 of the Act provides that a person who has obtained permission under paragraph (1) of Article 10 violates this Act or any order issued under this Act, the Minister of Labor may suspend the business or cancel the permission or registration; Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the Minister of Labor may cancel the permission under Article 19 of the Act if the person who conducts fee-charging placement service falls under any of the following subparagraphs (Article 4 of the Act provides that a person who receives money or goods other than the fee determined by the Minister of Labor in relation to the job placement service; and Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that a person may individually order to suspend the job placement service under Article 19 of the Act:

According to the above legislation, the Minister of Labor may cancel the permission when the fee-charging job placement service falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree, and when it falls under any of subparagraphs of Article 10 (4) of the Enforcement Decree, he may order the suspension of business for a period not exceeding three months

On the other hand, Article 23 (3) of the Regulations on the Permission for and Handling of Job Placement Services established by the Minister of Labor for the purpose of stipulating matters necessary for the permission for and job placement services under Article 10 (1) of the Act (Article 215 of the Rules of the Ministry of Labor) provides that "where a fee-charging job placement service is prosecuted by the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning job security and employment promotion or by other Acts and subordinate statutes, an indefinite business suspension shall be taken and administrative disposition shall be taken in accordance with the final and conclusive judgment." The above provision is not based on Article 10 (1) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which separately provides for the suspension of services, revocation of permission or registration under Article 19 of the Act

Thus, the defendant may revoke his permission under Articles 19 and 10(3) of the Act and Article 10(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Employment Security and Employment Promotion, on the ground that the plaintiff received money other than the fees determined by the Minister of Labor in relation to job placement services. The defendant's disposition of this case, which applied Article 23(3) of the Rules on Job Placement and Employment Promotion (Rules No. 215 of the Ministry of Labor) on the ground that the plaintiff was prosecuted for violating the Employment Security and Employment Promotion Act, is unlawful without any further determination as to the plaintiff's assertion about the grounds for revocation.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)