Attorney Han-do et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after the appeal.

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if the allegations are reviewed together with the evidence submitted in this case, it is recognized that the facts established in the first instance court and judgment are legitimate.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts to be dried;

○ Chapter 3, Chapter 9, " can be seen," and "as follows."

In addition, the exception provided for in Article 24(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act (in the case of a business of managing multi-family housing under the Multi-Family Housing Management Act, the number of full-time workers for each workplace, not an employer, may be exceptionally calculated) may also apply mutatis mutandis to this case. Therefore, in calculating the number of regular workers in relation to the Plaintiff’s obligation to employ disabled persons, the judgment by each hospital of this case

○ The following shall be added to the end of the second page.

Article 2, subparagraph 1 of the F City Ordinance on Promotion and Management of Entrustment of Administrative Affairs to the Private Sector stipulates that "and Article 2, subparagraph 1 of the F City Ordinance on Promotion and Management of Entrustment of Administrative Affairs to the Private Sector shall entrust part of the affairs of the F market to a corporation, organization, institution or individual and shall be exercised under

The 00th parallel 7 to 7th parallel 2 shall be followed as follows.

“B. Whether each of the instant hospitals can be viewed as a separate independent business owner (unlawful)

(1) The former Act on the Employment of Persons with Disabilities imposes on an employer who employs not less than 50 full-time workers a duty to employ disabled persons equivalent to or more than the ratio prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as "mandatory employment ratio") within the limit of 5/100 of the total number of the workers (Article 28(1)). Article 28(1) provides that an employer who employs disabled persons (excluding those who ordinarily employ not less than 50 and less than 100 workers) who employs disabled persons who fall short of the obligatory employment ratio shall report and pay the amount of disabled persons to the Minister of Employment and Labor within a fixed period under the conditions as prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 33(1) and (5). In addition, "employer" in the former Act on the Employment of Persons with Disabilities refers to a person who employs or intends to run a business by using a worker, and "worker" refers to a worker as defined in Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act

In full view of the language and content of the above provisions and the former Act on the Protection of Persons with Disabilities does not provide for the purpose of separating the applicable units for each workplace as stipulated in Article 8 of the Employment Insurance Act, and Article 24(3)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act provides that the number of full-time employees shall be calculated for each workplace in relation to the promotion of employment of persons with disabilities and the calculation of the mandatory employment ratio. In full view of the fact that a business owner under the former Act on the Employment of Persons with Disabilities provides for the calculation of the number of employees employed at each workplace, “business owner” refers to the legal entity that actually runs a business. In the event a business owner operates a number of workplaces in Korea, whether to comply with the mandatory employment ratio of persons with disabilities shall be determined by aggregating the number of employees at all workplaces operated by the business owner, except as otherwise provided for in special cases, such as multi-family housing management (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Du5941, Nov. 13,

(2) Examining the facts acknowledged earlier in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff is the legal entity that actually operates each of the instant hospitals by concluding a direct employment contract with the employees working at each of the instant hospitals, and each of the instant hospitals is merely a facility or a place of business operated by the Plaintiff and thus does not become the subject of rights and obligations. As such, the business entity of each of the instant hospitals under the former Act on the Employment of Persons with Disabilities is the Plaintiff, and the determination of whether to comply with the Plaintiff’s mandatory employment ratio should be made by summing up

Therefore, when adding full-time workers of each hospital of this case, the plaintiff falls under the business owner who employs more than 10 workers in the city from 2013 to 2015, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to employ disabled persons under Article 28(1) of the former Employment of Disabled Persons Act. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there is an error as alleged by the plaintiff in the disposition of this case that the plaintiff is liable to pay the employment charges for disabled persons to the plaintiff who employs disabled persons. [On the other hand, for the safe and efficient management of apartment houses, the apartment management business is a business managing apartment houses entrusted by the tenant, etc. from the medical corporation, and the purpose, attitude, and character of the plaintiff and the medical corporation that are the medical corporation. Therefore, on the ground that each hospital of this case has separate accounting and personnel management, the special provisions of Article 24(3)(excluding) of the Employment Promotion of Disabled Persons and Article 24(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act (the plaintiff's assertion on this is without merit]

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. 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.

Judges Lee Sung-sung

Judges Dooo