육아휴직급여차액지급신청반려처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
(a) to request guidance on the proceeding of the proceeding in the future.
“The document stating the content was presented.”
E. On April 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff, etc. of the return of the application for the difference in childcare leave benefits by stating the following as the title “return of the application for the difference in childcare leave benefits”; (b) returned 12 applications including the Plaintiff, etc., except for D applications among the said applications filed by 13 applicants (hereinafter “return of the instant application”).
1. Related matters;
(a) An application for the difference of childcare benefits with 13 persons, such as E (the' 14.4.24);
(b) Summary of rejecting the application;
Agency: Attorneys C and one other (the' 14.25 April 25, 194)
2. On April 25, 14. 25, an applicant except for a person who has already been in the process of a request for review on April 25, 14. The applicant's request for the return of the application for the difference in temporary retirement benefits for childcare shall be rejected, such as E, and the applicant shall return all of the applications by 12.
* A person who is already in process of a request for review: D
3. In addition, the administrative litigation shall be 90 days from the date the existence of the original disposition is known, and the period of reference shall be less than one year from the date the existence of the original disposition is available.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1 through 10, Eul evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 7-9, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
A. The Defendant asserted that the return of the instant application to the Plaintiff prior to the merits was a rejection disposition against the Plaintiff’s application for temporary retirement benefits on April 24, 2014, and that the rejection disposition is unlawful. The Defendant asserted that the return of the instant application is merely based on the Plaintiff’s return request and that the return of the application does not refuse the Plaintiff’s above application, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition, or that there is no interest
B. An administrative disposition subject to a judgment 1 is an administrative agency’s public authority.