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

On November 29, 2018 and December 18, 2018, the Labor Standards Act violation of the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter referred to as "the confirmation document of this case") is disclosed by means of delivering the confirmation document to the plaintiff's domicile, and provides a comprehensive implementation plan for supervision of work at workplace to the D hotel on November 29 and December 18, 2018.

The Plaintiff, as stated in the purport of the claim, discloses the instant written confirmation to the Defendant at his/her domicile, and seeks to provide D hotel with a comprehensive implementation plan for supervision of work at work on November 29, 2018 and December 18, 2018.

2. The defendant's main defense

As to this, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it is not stipulated in the Administrative Litigation Act, as the so-called "performance of obligation" lawsuit ordering administrative agencies to perform certain obligations.

3. Determination

The so-called “performance of obligations” that orders an administrative agency to actively engage in a certain act is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu868, Sept. 12, 1989; 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992).

The instant lawsuit is unlawful as a form of litigation that is not permitted under the Administrative Litigation Act, since it is apparent that the purport of the instant lawsuit itself is to order the Defendant to perform certain acts. Therefore, the Defendant’s main defense pointing this out has merit

4. Conclusion

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Cho Chang-hun

Judges Shin Sung-sung