2. Korea;

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff 7,650,00 won, Defendant Republic of Korea’s KRW 100,000,000, and each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from the day following the date of delivery of a copy of the letter of intent and cause modification as of March 26, 2014, to the day of this judgment, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”) commenced its business from January 1, 2002, and discontinued its business around August 14, 2008 due to business deterioration. D, working for the instant company, filed an application for recognition of bankruptcy, etc. with the head of the Defendant Seoul Local Labor Agency B branch office (hereinafter referred to as the “head of Defendant B branch office”) on August 22, 2008 on the ground that it was not paid wages from the instant company. The head of Defendant B branch office recognized the fact of bankruptcy, etc. against the instant company on October 30, 2008.

B. From July 12, 2004 to March 24, 2008, the Plaintiff was a repair science debate instructor at the instant company. On October 29, 2010, the Plaintiff submitted an application for confirmation of facts of substitute payment and a request for substitute payment by asserting that the Defendant B did not receive retirement pay (hereinafter “instant first application for substitute payment”) and on December 1, 2010, the head of Defendant B notified the Plaintiff of the non-existence of substitute payment by deeming that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on February 23, 2010 by the head of Defendant B branch office, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission revoked the Plaintiff’s non-conformity notification to the Plaintiff on November 29, 201. < Amended by Act No. 10337, Dec. 1, 2011>

D. On November 29, 201, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a decision that the Plaintiff constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act by its ruling. On January 27, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted an application for confirmation of facts of substitute payment and a request for substitute payment by asserting that the Plaintiff did not receive wages, shutdown allowances, and retirement allowances (hereinafter “instant secondary substitute payment”) to the head of Defendant B branch office (hereinafter “instant application for substitute payment”), and on June 15, 2012, the head of Defendant B branch office notified the Plaintiff on December 15, 2010 as of March 25, 2008, and filed an application for confirmation of the change of the monthly retirement allowance calculated as average wages for the last 3,40,830 won before the date of retirement, and the head of Defendant B branch office filed an application for confirmation of the fact that the instant application for confirmation was not made within 20 days after the date of the Plaintiff’s retirement, and on the ground that it was not made within 20 days after the date of bankruptcy decision 20.

E. On September 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the notification of confirmation of the above retirement allowance and the notification of the absence of confirmation of the paid-in retirement allowance, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, it is reasonable to view that the case where working hours are reduced due to the management crisis caused by the employer’s causes attributable to the employer as corresponding to the period of suspension of work due to the cause attributable to the employer under Article 2(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, and therefore, the portion of the Plaintiff’s notification of confirmation of the retirement allowance amounting to 3,40,830 won is illegal. However, since the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of substitute payment is made within two years from the date of recognition of the bankruptcy, etc., the portion of the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the payment of substitute payment was made within the exclusion period of two years from the date of recognition of the bankruptcy, and thus, the Defendant B and the Administrator of the National Police Agency revoked on May 28, 2013 with the Plaintiff on June 15, 20130.

F. On July 18, 2013, according to the purport of the ruling rendered by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on May 28, 2013, Defendant B notified the Plaintiff of the change of the fact that he additionally verified KRW 1,09,170 of a substitute payment for retirement allowances. The Plaintiff received KRW 4,500,000, which is the maximum amount of a substitute payment for retirement allowances publicly notified by the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to the Wage Claim Guarantee Act and subordinate statutes around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to the instructors of 85 private teaching institutes other than the Plaintiff who worked in the instant company, the head of Defendant B’s District Office intentionally denied that the Plaintiff is an employee without any objective supporting materials, even though he did not make a substitute payment by recognizing that the Plaintiff was an employee. Since the Plaintiff’s intentional act by the head of Defendant B branch office, and due to the illegal notification of non-existence of substitute payment (Retirement Allowance) on December 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was placed in a de facto disability that is unable to exercise the right to claim wages and shutdown allowances, the instant disposition issued by the Plaintiff on January 27, 2012 on the ground that the exclusion period has expired, and thus, the instant disposition issued by the head of Defendant B branch office shall be revoked on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to verify the application for payment of the Plaintiff’s wages and shutdown allowances was unlawful. The Defendant B branch office shall pay the Plaintiff the maximum amount of substitute payment of KRW 3,150,000 and substitute payment of KRW 4,500,6500.

(2) The labor inspectors belonging to the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency (hereinafter referred to as the "labor inspectors of this case") committed an unlawful act of paying substitute payments by recognizing that they are 85 private teaching institutes instructors working in the company of this case, even though there is no objective supporting materials (the labor inspectors of this case, considering that the workers of this case are workers under the Labor Standards Act, the labor inspectors of this case agreed with the above instructors to give up the amount of retirement allowances and receive substitute payments for only the wages). The plaintiff's above 85 private teaching institute instructors of this case committed an unlawful act of informing them of the details of the plaintiff's personal information and the information of those who reported the illegal receipt of substitute payments of the 85 private teaching institute instructors of the fact that the above 85 private teaching institute instructors of this case conducted an investigation and conducted an intentional investigation, and thereby deprived the plaintiff of their right to claim substitute payments and substitute payments by taking account of the fact that they are the instructors of the private teaching institute in question of whether they are workers under the Labor Standards Act. Thus, the labor inspectors of this case were deprived of the plaintiff's obligation to interpret and substitute payments of this case 00.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On July 12, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office to request the instant company to receive unpaid retirement allowances, and the labor inspector E belonging to the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office to review the data submitted by the Plaintiff around September 10, 2010, determined that the contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the instant company is not a labor contract but a contract for work, and concluded the said petition case with the purport of denying the Plaintiff’s worker status under the direction of the public prosecutor in charge of the Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office.

(2) The main contents of the statement made by the labor inspector E on July 27, 2010 are as follows.

원고가 2010. 7. 12. 제출한 진정서는 퇴직금을 지급받지 못해 제출하는 것임.원고는 2004. 7. 12.부터 2008. 3. 25.까지 이 사건 회사에서 수리과학논술강사로 일했고, 임금은지역별, 학교별, 학원별 1타임 3시간 기준으로 지급받기로 했으며, 임금 정기지급일은 매월 15일이었고, 임금산정기준은 전월 1일부터 말일까지였음.- 원고는 주로 이 사건 회사 직영학원인 청담, 대치, 목동, 분당 분원에서 강의를 했고, 이 사건 회사주관의 학교특강을 하였다.근로계약서는 처음에는 작성하지 않다가 2006년도에 작성한 바 있고, 강사체결 약정서의 형태로되어 있었음(원고는 약정서를 잃어버려 다른 강사의 약정서를 요청하여 제출함).- 원고는 한 강의당 3~4시간 강의를 했고, 많이 한 날은 3~4강을 하고, 적게 한 날은 1강으로 끝난 적도 있었으며, 기본급은 없었고, 강의당 정해진 금액만 받았음.강의스케쥴은 학원에서 정해주었고, F 팀장이 알려주었으며, 정해진 고정적인 출퇴근 시간은 없었근무장소는 학교와 학원이 6:4 정도로 학교강의가 많았고, 주로 부산, 마산 등에 있는 지방 학교에 강의를 나갔음.학교강의는 3개월 전에 미리 스케줄을 알려주었으며, 원고가 활동한 2005년부터 2007년까지는한 달에 20회에서 25회 이상의 강의가 있었음.- 학원은 7월부터 10월까지와 12월에 강의가 가장 많았고, 학교는 대중이 없음.마지막으로 강의를 한 날은 2008년 2월이었고, 2008. 3. 25, F 팀장과 다른 몇몇이 나와서 강사들을 모아놓고 학원이 어려워서 돈을 제대로 못 주니까 학원이 정상화될 때까지 기다려 달라는 말을하여 퇴사를 하게 되었음.퇴사 후 우연히 강사들을 만나 퇴직금 제도가 있다는 것을 알게 되었고, 학원이 망하여 체당금을받았다는 사실을 알게 되어 진정을 제기하였음.

(3) On September 20, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a second petition for the retirement benefits unpaid to the B branch office of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office. At the same time, the Plaintiff filed a report with the Audit and Inspection Office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor that the instructors who received a substitute payment under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (hereinafter referred to as “the instructors who received a substitute payment”) after the Plaintiff retired from the instant company, received the substitute payment under the said Act.

(4) According to the Plaintiff’s report on the rejection of substitute payment, the Audit Office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor issued an order to re-examine the employee status of the instructors receiving substitute payment and the appropriateness of the substitute payment to the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office B branch office. The labor inspector G of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor branch office mainly conducted a re-examination of the same, and the Plaintiff, unlike the Plaintiff who did not force regular teams, received substitute payment, provided that it is reasonable to regard the Plaintiff as an employee on the ground that there is a difference between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff in the recognition of the employment-subsidiary relationship by receiving a specific work order from the employer, such as the management of the students’ right to school attendance and parents counseling, and the payment of substitute payment is reasonable. In the case of the Plaintiff, it is difficult to recognize the employment-based relationship, and it is difficult to recognize the employment-based relationship in the case of the Plaintiff as well as pure lecture medical service, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s original work-related case is difficult to be recognized as a consideration for work.

(5) On October 2010 and November 201, G prepared with respect to the statements made by H, I, J, K, and L (hereinafter referred to as “instant instructors”) as instructors belonging to the instant company by the labor inspector, the major contents of the statement are as follows.

At least 90% of the lecture, the instructors of this case were employed at the principal school and the direct school of the company of this case, and they were mainly engaged in regular lectures at the school of this case.The remaining instructors except J among the instructors of this case did not have the employment contract, and there was no basic salary.- The lecture unilaterally notified the company's side of the contract. In the case of regular teams, it was confirmed at the beginning of the semester, and at that time notified by the head of the private school office at that time.- The instructors of this case were paid wages by calculating monthly lecture hours and receiving wages by the 15th day of the next month. The instructors of this case had the amount of the school special lecture, and the amount of the school special lecture was different, and the amount of the school special lecture was paid by the head office.The reasons for determining wages by region without setting the school special lecture hours was 30,000 won per 2.5 hours per month per month.

It is known that the instant instructors paid a difference including traffic expenses. - In the event that the instant instructors wish to take a special school course, they did not make a report on the lectures and the completion of the lecture, and they made a call for confirmation of the head office. - The instant instructors did not prepare a commuting book at a private teaching institute, let the instant instructors attend school at one hour before the beginning of the class, and have the instructors attend school at one hour after the completion of the class. - The instant instructors were not covered by four insurance, and the individual business income tax was deducted by 3.3%.- Although the instant instructors were not controlled by the instant company to prevent the instant instructors from working at other private teaching institutes, the instant instructors did not have any obligation to attend school on the day when they did not know that they were demoted to the instant instructors, but did not have any obligation to use the teaching materials, but did not have any other obligation to use the teaching materials, but did not have any other obligation to use the teaching materials, nor did they receive any instruction or any other obligation to use the lecture information, which they could not have been subject to any instruction.

(6) On October 29, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant first substitute payment with the head of Defendant B branch office. Accordingly, on December 1, 2010, the head of Defendant B branch office notified the Plaintiff of the confirmation that the Plaintiff was disqualified for the substitute payment, and the Plaintiff appealed against it and filed an administrative appeal on February 23, 201, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling revoking the notification of non-verification of the substitute payment as of December 1, 2010 by the head of Defendant B branch office.

(7) The main contents of the letter of confirmation written by F, which was an employee of the instant company, around January 10, 201, are as follows.

- The F was in charge of the school project of this case at the time of the employee of the instant company, and the state affairs were management affairs such as the employment of instructors and the allocation of time. The instant company used not only the private teaching institute instructors who were demoted at the instant school to recruit school instructors due to the expansion of the school project, but also external instructors.- Of the instructors retired from the instant company, K, H, J, L, etc. among the instructors of this case are students who were demoted with the instant company within the scope of the instant company. The Plaintiff refused to prepare the instant company on the ground that there was a fact that the instant company did not comply with the contract form required by the instant company, and that the Plaintiff refused to do so even before the private teaching institute closes its business.

(8) Even after filing an administrative appeal, the Plaintiff reported the illegal receipt of substitute payments to the Audit Office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor on April 21, 201, and on May 2, 2011, to the Audit and Inspection Office of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and again, on October 10, 201 and 28, to the Audit and Inspection Office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, the Plaintiff raised several issues regarding the payment of substitute payments to the instructors who received substitute payments, but all of them were not accepted.

(9) On the other hand, around July 201, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the labor inspector G belonging to the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency as a violation of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information of Public Institutions and a violation of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information of Public Institutions; the labor inspector E; the labor inspector M as a violation of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information of Public Institutions; the labor inspector M as a violation of the Act on the Protection of Wage Claims; but the prosecutor at the Suwon Regional Employment and Labor Agency’s planning general manager and team leader N as a crime of occupational abandonment; however, on September 30, 2011, the prosecutor at the Suwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office as a public prosecutor at the Suwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office was all suspected of all the above G, E, M,

(10) On January 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for the second substitute payment with the head of Defendant B branch office of this case. Accordingly, on June 15, 2012, the head of Defendant B branch office notified the Plaintiff of the change of the confirmation of the amount of 3,400,830 won per physical retirement allowance, along with the notification of the change in the confirmation of the fact that the Plaintiff applied for substitute payment after the lapse of the exclusion period of two years. On September 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the notification of confirmation of the above retirement allowance and the notification of the non-verification of the wage and the temporary retirement allowance, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the decision of acceptance and the notification of the non-verification of the confirmation of the amount of the wage and the temporary retirement allowance.

(11) In accordance with the purport of ruling by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on May 28, 2013, Defendant B, the Director of the District Court

On July 18, 2013, the plaintiff notified the plaintiff of the change of the fact that he additionally confirmed 1,099,170 won of a retirement allowance substitute payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Gap evidence 12-1, 2, Gap evidence 13, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether the instant disposition is lawful

Article 7 (1) of the former Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Act No. 12528, Mar. 24, 2014; hereinafter referred to as "the former Wage Claim Guarantee Act") provides that "the Minister of Employment and Labor shall pay the unpaid wages, etc. of a retired worker on behalf of the employer, notwithstanding Article 469 of the Civil Act concerning payment to a third party when the employer files a claim for the payment of unpaid wages, etc. in cases where the retired worker falls under the grounds prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as bankruptcy." Article 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25630, Sep. 24, 2014; hereinafter referred to as "Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act") provides that "the grounds prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as bankruptcy, etc." in Article 7 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act means any of the following cases:

Meanwhile, Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act provides that a person who intends to make a substitute payment under Article 7 (4) of the Act shall file a claim with the Minister of Employment and Labor within two years from the date of adjudication of bankruptcy, etc. or adjudication of bankruptcy, etc., and Article 19 (3) 2 of the Regulations on the Confirmation and Confirmation of Bankruptcy, etc. provides that "where an applicant files an application for confirmation after two years from the date of adjudication of bankruptcy or bankruptcy, etc., the applicant shall notify the confirmation." Since it is reasonable to see that the period of the application for substitute payment under Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Wage Guarantee Act is the exclusion period which is the period of exercise of rights in judicial or extra-judicial cases, the right to claim a substitute payment is terminated as a matter of course.According to the above facts, the date of recognition of bankruptcy, etc. of the company of this case is more appropriate than the 20-year period of the plaintiff's claim for a substitute payment against the head of the company for the suspension of business and substitute payment.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that, due to the Plaintiff’s illegal and intentional notification of the Plaintiff on December 1, 2010 on the eligibility of substitute payment (retirement) payment (retirement payment), the Plaintiff was in de facto unable to claim substitute payment for wages and shutdown allowances, and that the Plaintiff was able to claim substitute payment for wages and shutdown allowances only after the decision of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which recognized the Plaintiff’s worker status, was rendered on November 29, 201. However, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have legal or de facto limitation in claiming substitute payment for wages and shutdown allowances at the time of filing the instant substitute payment with the head of Defendant B on December 1, 2010. In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the period of exclusion would result in the extinguishment of the right by the expiration of a certain period, namely, the Plaintiff’s right to claim for wages and shutdown allowances, regardless of whether or not it is possible to exercise the right for a certain period, is not recognized differently from the period of extinctive prescription of 1204.294.

(2) Whether the plaintiff's claim for substitute payment against the head of defendant B is legitimate

In full view of the Plaintiff’s provisions of Article 7(1) and (4) of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, Articles 9(1) and 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, the right to receive a substitute payment under the said Act does not directly arise under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, but the right to claim a substitute payment under the said Act arises when the head of the competent local employment and labor office determines that a substitute payment satisfies the requirements for a substitute payment and requests a substitute payment. Any person who intends to receive a substitute payment under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act is entitled to receive a substitute payment under the said Act by confirming that the head of the competent local employment and labor office has satisfied the requirements for a substitute payment. In addition, where the head of the competent local employment and labor office rejects a substitute payment or requests a substitute payment under the said Act by filing an appeal suit against the relevant party’s lawsuit, and it is unlawful for the head of the competent local employment and labor office to immediately seek a substitute payment under the said Act against the head of the competent local employment and labor office without specific rights (see, e.g., the Plaintiff’s right to claim a substitute payment under the above.

(3) The main text of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act provides that "the State or a local government shall compensate for damages caused by a public official or a private person entrusted with public duties (hereinafter "public official") in violation of the statutes in the course of performing his/her duties, or when he/she is liable to compensate for damages pursuant to the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the State or a local government shall compensate for such damages pursuant to this Act." Meanwhile, even if any administrative disposition can be evaluated as illegal as a result of its result, it cannot be immediately determined that such administrative disposition constitutes tort due to a public official's intentional act or negligence. It is reasonable to deem that the administrative disposition has been deemed to have lost objective legitimacy by breach of the duty of care. Whether it has lost objective legitimacy should be determined by taking into account various circumstances such as the form and purpose of the administrative disposition that constitutes an infringement, the degree of involvement of victims and involvement, the type of gains infringed, and the degree of damages, etc., whether the State or a local government is liable to compensate for damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da1636360.

Examining the instant case’s various evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 18, 19, 20, 20, and 23, and witness 0, and P’s testimony, it is insufficient to deem that the instant labor inspector violated the relevant statutes intentionally or by negligence in performing his/her duties, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. In full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, even though Defendant B’s Head of the Branch Office’s notification of non-existence of substitute payment and the disposition of retirement allowance of KRW 3,40,830 as of December 15, 2012, it is difficult to deem that the instant labor inspector violated his/her duty of care in performing his/her duties and has lost objective justification.

(1) Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act provides, regardless of the type of occupation, a person who provides labor at a business or workplace for the purpose of wages. Determination of whether a contract constitutes a worker ought to be based on whether a worker provided labor at a subordinate relationship with an employer for the purpose of wages in substance, regardless of whether a contract is an employment contract under the Civil Act or a contract for work. Determination of such subordinate relationship is based on whether the content of work is determined by the employer and is subject to the rules of employment or the regulations of service, etc., in the course of performing duties, specific direction and supervision from the employer, whether the work hours and place are designated by the employer and are detained by the employer, whether the work is replaced by the worker, whether the ownership of equipment, etc., the ownership of a basic wage or fixed wage has the nature of remuneration, whether the nature of remuneration is determined by the worker’s own, whether the continuous provision of labor and the degree and degree of exclusive employment to the employer, whether the worker status is recognized by other social and economic factors, and whether the workers are ordinarily and economically factors can be determined.

② In particular, there is a lot of controversy over whether an instructor of a private teaching institute is an employee with golf course capital, a local borrower, an insurance solicitor, a learning site teacher, a teacher, a nurse, and a telephone salesman, etc. In addition, in the instant case, the Plaintiff mainly differs from the substituted instructors in charge of lectures in the direct driving school which is not the principal source of the school, and there was a little difference in the employer’s specific direction and supervision or the exclusive nature of duties. Unlike other substitute payment received instructors, the Plaintiff applied for substitute payment after a considerable period of time from October 30, 2008, which was recognized as bankruptcy, etc., in light of the fact that the instant company applied for substitute payment after a considerable period of time from October 30, 2008, the instant labor inspector had room to determine the Plaintiff’s employee differently from other instructors.

③ In addition, there is no objective evidence that the Plaintiff reported that the Plaintiff received substitute payments at the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office B branch offices and the Audit and Inspection Office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, etc. without any objective ground, but the Plaintiff reported that the Plaintiff received substitute payments at the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office B branch offices and the Audit and Inspection Office of the Ministry of Employment and Labor denied such substitute payment. However, it was dismissed due to no investigation.

④ There is no evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s assertion that the labor inspector agreed with M of Labor Workers to have instructors working in the instant company waive a retirement allowance and receive a substitute payment for only the overdue wages as a substitute payment, and there is no evidence suggesting that E of labor inspector intentionally denied the Plaintiff’s worker status in order to prevent the Plaintiff from receiving a substitute payment.

⑤ The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the violation of the public institution’s personal information protection on September 30, 201, on the grounds that the Plaintiff leaked the Plaintiff’s personal information in the course of a labor inspector G, E, M, and planning-general and team leader’s occupational abandonment, violation of the Wage Claim Report Act, and a re-investigation due to an illegal receipt of reports. However, the prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office issued a disposition against both G, E, M, and N on September 30, 201. The Plaintiff filed an application for a ruling with the Seoul High Court but dismissed the application.

(6) The plaintiff asserts that all of the instructors who receive substitute payments are workers working in the same form, while the labor inspector in this case asserts that the instructors who received substitute payments were to receive substitute payments in violation of the labor inspector's business regulations and the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, and that the instructors who received substitute payments were to receive substitute payments and intentionally denied the plaintiff's worker status in order to conceal these facts, but it cannot be recognized that the instructors received substitute payments were to receive substitute payments. However, even if it is assumed that the instructors who received substitute payments were to receive substitute payments as the plaintiff's assertion that substitute payments were to receive substitute payments, it is illegal to recognize them as workers who worked in the same form as the same as the paid instructors on the ground of the fact that the instructors received substitute payments were to receive substitute payments as the plaintiff's assertion, and thus, it is not acceptable

7. ① On October 29, 2010, at the time of the Plaintiff’s application for the instant first substitute payment for a retirement allowance to Defendant B’s head of Defendant B’s branch, there was no legal or factual limitation in claiming the substitute payment for the wages and business suspension allowances, and there was no evidence to deem that the period of exclusion of the Plaintiff’s right to claim the substitute payment has expired due to the instant labor inspector.

(8) According to Article 2 (1) 6 of the Labor Standards Act, the term "average wages" means the amount calculated by dividing the total amount of wages paid to the relevant worker during the three-month period prior to the date on which the cause for calculating the average wages occurred by the total number of days in the said three-month period: Provided, That Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act provides that, where any of the periods, such as the probationary period during the period of calculating average wages, the period of suspension of work due to a cause attributable to an employer, the period and the total amount of wages paid during such period, shall be deducted respectively from the period and the total amount of wages calculated, but does not explicitly provide that "where

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for substitute payment of KRW 7,650,000 against the head of the branch office of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful and dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-il

Judge No. Doingk

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.