도산등사실인정 거부처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Circumstances and details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff was retired while serving in C (hereinafter “instant workplace”) operated by B from August 26, 2013 to May 31, 2016, and was not paid wages and retirement allowances during the period of service.
B. On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for recognition of bankruptcy, etc. regarding the instant workplace (hereinafter “instant application”). However, on April 26, 2017, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s instant application on the ground that the instant workplace is not in the process of discontinuance or discontinuance of its business and is under normal operation.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
After that, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 3, 2018, and the said written ruling was served on the Plaintiff on April 19, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, purport of whole pleadings
2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;
3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition
A. Although the Plaintiff’s application of this case satisfies all the requirements under Article 7(1)3 and Article 7(1)5(1) of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Act No. 14839, Jul. 26, 2017; hereinafter “former Wage Claim Guarantee Act”), the Defendant was subject to the instant disposition by mistake of facts that the Plaintiff was under normal operation without going through the process of discontinuance or discontinuance of business at the instant workplace, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.
B. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted prior to the determination, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff was in a state of suspension of production or business activity in the instant workplace at the time of the instant disposition.
or principal production or business activity for at least one month.