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

A. On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the status of non-professional employment (E-9) as a foreigner with four arms, and worked in SY Industry Co., Ltd. and B Textiles factories, etc. from around that time, and filed an application for change of the place of business under Article 25(1) of the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers (hereinafter “Foreign Workers Employment Act”) with the Defendant on May 28, 2015.

B. The period of change of the Plaintiff’s place of business (hereinafter “the period of validity of registration of job seeking”) was up to August 28, 2015, which was three months after the date of application for change of the Plaintiff’s place of business. However, the Plaintiff submitted a diagnosis on post-management surgery to the Defendant and received the extension of the above period until September 10, 2015. The Plaintiff expressed his intention to work after an interview with the Defendant on September 8, 2015 (hereinafter “non-party company”), and accordingly, the non-party company decided to employ the Plaintiff. On September 11, 2015, the employee in charge of the non-party company rejected the Plaintiff’s application for extension of the period of extension of the period of extension of the Plaintiff’s place of business (hereinafter “the period of extension of the period of extension of the period of employment permit”) on the ground that the change of the Plaintiff’s place of business and the employee in charge of the work did not change the period of extension of the period of 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 15 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's main defense

The defendant returned the application for employment permission to the plaintiff of the non-party company on the ground that it does not have computerized inputs due to the expiration of the period of change of the plaintiff's place of business, and did not have any disposition to refuse employment permission to the non-party company. The other party to the employment permission or non-permission disposition is not a foreign worker who is not the employer but the plaintiff is not the employer. Thus, the part of the application for cancellation of the employment permission

B. Determination

1) If it appears that an individual's right to apply for an administrative action is recognized in accordance with the interpretation of the provision that provides the basis for a citizen's application, the refusal shall be deemed a disposition subject to appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du26339, Sept. 29, 201). Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Employment of Foreign Countries provides that " If an employer who has filed an application for recruiting nationals pursuant to Article 6 (2) fails to employ a worker even after receiving a job placement under Article 6 (2), the employer shall apply for an employment permit to the head of the employment security office as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor." Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that "the head of the employment security office shall grant an employment permit without delay to the employer who has selected an eligible person recommended pursuant to paragraph (3) and issue a foreign worker's name, etc., written application for employment permit to the defendant pursuant to the above legal provisions, and the non-party company shall have the right to apply for employment permit to the defendant.

2) In addition, legal interest under Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act refers to a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the pertinent administrative disposition, and it does not include cases where a third party, who is not the other party to the administrative disposition, has a direct or factual interest in the pertinent administrative disposition. However, even though it is a third party, if the interests protected by the law due to the pertinent administrative disposition are infringed, it shall be eligible to file a revocation lawsuit and obtain a decision on the propriety thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du12289, Jan. 25, 2007; 2006Du12289, Jan. 25, 2007). Since Articles 9(3) and 20(1)1 of the Foreign National Employment Act provide that "an employer and a foreign worker who have obtained an employment permit may enter into an employment contract and restrict employment of foreign workers for three years for the employer without an employment permit, the plaintiff cannot enter into an employment contract between the non-party company and the non-party company.

3) Therefore, the defendant's above main defense cannot be accepted.

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to the disposition of denial of the employment permit of this case, the Plaintiff started work in the non-party company from September 9, 2015 to change its workplace within the period of change of the workplace. The Plaintiff was merely subject to the application for the employment permit of the Plaintiff after the lapse of the period of change of the non-party company’s father or the actual waterway workplace. Thus, the Defendant’s rejection of the application for the employment permit of this case is unlawful.

2) The reason why the Plaintiff did not obtain the permission of change within the period of change of the place of business is not attributable to the Plaintiff, but due to the non-party company's failure to obtain the permission of change of the place of business due to the reasons attributable to the Plaintiff, which constitutes "where it is impossible to obtain the permission of change of the place of business due to occupational accidents, diseases, pregnancy, childbirth, etc." under the proviso of Article 25 (3) of the Foreign Employment Act, and thus, the Defendant's rejection of the application period for change of

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 21(1) main text and Article 21(2) main text of the Immigration Control Act provides that "where a foreigner staying in the Republic of Korea intends to change or add his/her workplace within the scope of his/her sojourn status, the foreigner shall obtain prior permission from the Minister of Justice." Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 76(2)2 [Attachment 5-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that "a person who intends to obtain permission to change his/her workplace shall submit to the head of the Immigration Control Office, etc. an application for permission to change his/her workplace with employment status of non-professional employment (E-9), and Article 25(3) main text of the Foreign Employment Act and Article 30(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the head of the Employment Security Office shall not hire or arrange the employment of a foreigner who fails to obtain the above permission to change his/her workplace within the period of employment status." Thus, the plaintiff's ground for permission to change his/her workplace should not be accepted.

A) 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 the effect of indirectly restricting the foreign worker’s relocation of the place of business. As such, it can be seen that a foreign worker who enters the place of business for the purpose of employment protection is seeking efficient employment management by protecting domestic workers’ employment opportunities and preventing a foreign worker from staying in the Republic of Korea without having an intention to work for the change of his/her place of business or by preventing a foreign worker who enters the place of business for a long time without any intention to work for the change of his/her place of business. If the period of change of the place of business is recognized 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 the foreign worker’s decline of the place of business, will increase the rate of departure by continuously moving the place of business (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2009HunMa351).

B) The proviso of Article 25(3) of the Foreign Employment Act provides that "where it is impossible to obtain permission to change the workplace due to occupational accidents, diseases, pregnancy, childbirth, etc., the period of change of the workplace shall be calculated from the date on which such cause ceases to exist (hereinafter referred to as "the proviso of this case")." In light of the legislative intent of Article 25(3) of the Foreign Employment Act, the following circumstances revealed by the respective descriptions of the relevant statutes and the relevant statutes and the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, and Nos. 7 through 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings, are presented. In this case, the Plaintiff’s failure to obtain permission to change the workplace within the period of change of the workplace does not constitute grounds for the extension of the period of change of the workplace, and thus, this part of the Plaintiff’

(1) Article 25(1)2 and (4) of the Foreign Employment Act provides that a foreign worker may file an application for the change of his/her workplace without any limit to the number of times and causes attributable to the employer for reasons not attributable to the foreign worker, such as suspension of business, closure of business, cancellation of employment permit, restriction on employment, violation of the employer’s working conditions or unfair treatment, etc. On the other hand, considering that both occupational accidents, diseases, pregnancy, and childbirth stipulated in the proviso of this case are reasons for the physical or health conditions of the worker who is unrelated to the cause attributable to the employer, it is reasonable to interpret the proviso of this case that the foreign worker cannot file an application for the change of his/her workplace within the changed business place due to physical or health conditions, etc., or it is impossible to obtain the change of his/her workplace due to the impossibility of providing the work, and thus, it

(2) Furthermore, the proviso clause of this case provides that "the period of change of the workplace shall be calculated from the date on which the cause ceases to exist." Thus, it is difficult to specify "the date on which the cause ceases to exist" as stipulated in the above provision in the case of reasons that the plaintiff did not obtain the permission of change of workplace within the period of change due to reasons attributable to the employer's negligence, such as negligence or failure, etc. (as seen in the above, when the plaintiff found the non-party company and interviewed the non-party company, the period of change of workplace was not more than 2 days. Thus, even if the ground for extension of the period of change of workplace occurred at that time, an application for change of workplace should be made within 2 days from the date on which the reason ceases to exist, even if the plaintiff knew that the return of the application for employment permission to the plaintiff by the non-party

(3) In addition, ① the Plaintiff received education on the employment permit system for foreign workers from August 6, 2014 to August 8, 2014, the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business from the entry into the Republic of Korea, and the “certificate of foreign job seeking registration issued to the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s application for change of the Plaintiff’s workplace” stated that the period of change of the workplace is until September 10, 2015, and the back direction column stated that the issuance of the employment permit is impossible after the lapse of the period of change of the workplace. Although it was clearly known that the period of permission for change of the workplace was no later than September 10, 2015, the period of change of the workplace was no more than several workplaces arranged by the Defendant during the period of change of the workplace, the Plaintiff already submitted the diagnosis certificate to the Defendant for change of the workplace after the nuclear surgery, and the Plaintiff could not be seen as having been subject to the Plaintiff’s change of the workplace within the period of time prior to the expiration of the workplace.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Goh Sung

Mobilization of Judges

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.