3. Incorporated agricultural companies;

2. Of the costs of appeal, the part arising between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant is assessed against the Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant is assessed against the said Plaintiffs, respectively.

A. On August 8, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition to revoke the employment permit of foreign workers as to each foreign worker listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list of foreign workers listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list of foreign workers (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2”) and the disposition to revoke the employment permit of foreign workers as to each foreign worker listed in paragraph (2) of the same list of Plaintiff C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff 3”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2”).

B. Each disposition of restricting employment of foreign workers against each of the Plaintiffs on August 8, 2016 (three years from August 5, 2016 to August 4, 2019) is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. Plaintiffs 2 and 3

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the above plaintiffs shall be revoked. The judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the part against the above plaintiffs in paragraphs (1) and (1)-B of this claim.

B. Defendant

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part on the Plaintiff A farming association corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A1”) shall be revoked. The above Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

(a) Outline of the employment permit system for foreign workers;

The Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers (hereinafter referred to as the "Foreign Workers Employment Act") was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the smooth supply and demand of human resources and the balanced development of the national economy through the systematic introduction and management of foreign workers (Article 1 of the Foreign Workers Employment Act). To this end, the foreign worker employment permit system is implemented, and the main contents of the system are as follows:

1) A person who intends to employ a foreign worker shall file an application for recruiting nationals with a local labor administrative agency (hereinafter referred to as “local labor administrative agency”), and where a person fails to employ a foreign worker even after receiving a job placement from the local labor office, he/she may file an application for the employment permit for the foreign worker with the head of the local labor office. Upon receipt of an application for the employment permit for a foreign worker, the head of the local labor office shall recommend an eligible person from among those registered in the list of foreign job seekers, such as the type and scale of foreign workers, and shall promptly grant the employment permit to the employer who has selected the eligible person recommended accordingly, and issue the employment permit stating the name, etc. of the selected foreign worker (Article 6(1), Article 8(1), (3), and (4) of the Foreign Workers Employment Act, Article 2-2 subparag. 1 of the Employment Security Act).

2) The head of a regional employment office may revoke the employment permit of a foreign worker where he/she has obtained the employment permit of the foreign worker by fraudulent or other illegal means, and where the employment permit of the foreign worker has been revoked by fraudulent or other illegal means, the said foreign worker’s employment permit may be restricted for three years from the date of occurrence of the relevant disciplinary measure against the case where the said foreign worker has retired from employment by an adjustment in employment within six months from the date of commencement of the employment permit of the foreign worker after obtaining the employment permit (Articles 19(1) and 20(1) of the Foreign Employment Act, and Article 25 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Employment Act).

3) In order to deliberate and resolve on major matters concerning the employment management and protection of foreign workers, the policy committee for foreign workers (hereinafter referred to as the “policy committee”) shall be established under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister (Article 4(1) of the Foreign Workers Employment Act), and the type of business, size, etc. for which foreign workers may be employed (Article 8(3) of the same Act and Article 13-4 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). The policy committee shall select crop cultivation business, etc. as a type of business subject to employment permit for foreign workers and shall employ five persons in the case of mushroom cultivation, where the cultivation area is more than 1,000 square meters, but the Minister of Employment and Labor shall determine that five persons can be employed if the cultivation area is more than 5,900 meters, and the Minister of Employment and Labor publicly announced this on December 23, 2015.

B. The plaintiffs' status and status of employment permit for foreign workers

1) The Plaintiffs are all corporations established with the primary purpose of producing, selling, distributing, etc. all gabs.

2) From October 2007, Plaintiff 1 obtained the employment permit for foreign workers each year. Around January 14, 2014, Plaintiff 1 hired a foreign worker with the employment permit for foreign workers, but had the Korean workers G, H, March 7, 2014, which was within six months from the date of commencement of the work, left the job due to employment adjustment for the Korean workers I, J, and K on March 17, 2014.

3) After Plaintiff 2 assumed office as a sole representative director on March 10, 2014, Plaintiff 2 was issued a certificate of the scale of farming from the Jeonnam-gun, Seoul-gun on June 3, 2014. Plaintiff 2 applied for the employment permit of foreign workers to the Defendant by applying for the employment permit of foreign workers on July 3, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2014, 9.12, and 12, from the Defendant. Subsequent, Plaintiff 2 obtained the employment permit of foreign workers, etc. from October 21, 2014 to October 21, 2015.

4) Plaintiff 3 was established on October 19, 2015, and was granted employment permission for two foreign workers of this case on December 11, 2015.

C. The defendant's investigation process of the disposition of this case

1) The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission was reported by Plaintiff 1’s former employees that “(i) the representative L of Plaintiff 1 was not assigned a foreign worker for one year from March 2014 to March 2015 due to the problem of layoff for domestic workers, and (ii) the Plaintiff 2 was issued a false farming scale certificate from the public official in charge of the Jeonnam-nam Bank, despite not being engaged in farming, and obtained a foreign worker employment permit from the Defendant using the above documents.” The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission confirmed the part of the above report as true, and confirmed that the part of the above report was based on fact, and transferred to the Ministry of Employment and Labor the affairs concerning disciplinary action against the above public official in charge on January 11, 2016, and the cancellation of employment permit, etc.

2) In applying Articles 19(1) and 20(1) of the Foreign Employment Act, the Defendant, through the Ministry of Employment and Labor, transferred the affairs concerning the cancellation, etc. of the employment permit for foreign workers, issued a disposition to revoke the employment permit for foreign workers on April 7, 2016 and to restrict the employment of foreign workers (one year).

D. Details and process of the instant disposition

1) Meanwhile, the documents referred to by the Defendant by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (Evidence 1) were written in detail. After undergoing an additional investigation, such as a business trip investigation into the Plaintiffs’ workplace, the Defendant notified all the Plaintiffs of the guidance to present their opinions and the prior disposition of the following details on June 30, 2016.

[Written Notice of each Disposition of this case]

1. The term "business or workplace that employs or intends to employ foreign workers" under Article 3 of the Foreigner Employment and Civil Rights Commission Act shall be an independent place of business that has been filed to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission with the content of the violation of the Foreigner Employment and Civil Rights Commission. 2. However, the term "business or workplace that employs or intends to employ foreign workers" means a business or workplace that can be specifically and substantially distinguished from the scope of actual personnel management system, labor management system, subordinate relationship with use, accounting, etc. Even if it is conducted on the basis of the materials submitted by the previous company, the statement of the representative, the statement of the workers, and the confirmation at the time of the on-site inspection. Although the plaintiffs exist in form as a separate business (the head), it is difficult to view the three above businesses as independent business (the head), and if a substantial business (the head) has obtained the employment permit for foreign workers as three businesses (the head) in form, it constitutes a case where he/she has received the employment permit for the relevant foreign workers under Article 19 (1) of the same Act or other unlawful means.

2) Accordingly, on July 14, 2016, the Plaintiffs submitted a written opinion (Evidence B No. 46) with respect to the Defendant. The gist of the written opinion is as follows: ① the Plaintiffs are strictly independent corporations; ② the total amount of the Plaintiffs’ farming is at least 5,900 meters; and so, not more than 20 foreign workers can be employed. The Plaintiffs’ total number of foreign workers employed is merely 18 persons at the present, and the disposition of employment restriction premised on this premise is illegal, unjust, and illegal. Meanwhile, at the time of the submission of the written opinion, the Plaintiffs are aware that the instant disposition was attributable to the report of the retired employee from the Plaintiff 1, and the said written opinion also states the purport of disputing the credibility of the above reported content.

3) On August 8, 2016, the defendant sent a notice of the cancellation of employment permit and the restriction on employment to all the plaintiffs (Evidence 2-1 of No. 2), and as to the plaintiff 2 and 3, as to the plaintiff 1 and 2, the notice of the cancellation of employment permit for each of the foreign workers (hereinafter referred to as "the notice of the cancellation of employment permit for each of the foreign workers in this case") is individually specified for the first and second workers in each of the above cases, and sent a separate notice of the cancellation of employment permit for each of the above foreign workers (hereinafter referred to as "the notice of the cancellation of employment permit for each of the above cases") (the notice of the above disposition from August 5, 2016 to 24, 2016 to the majority of the reasons for the employment permit for each of the above foreign workers (the notice of the cancellation of employment permit under the Employment Permit for Foreign Workers Act). The notice of the above disposition for each of the above reasons for the cancellation of employment permit for each of the above foreign workers (the above notice of dismissal permit).

1) The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of each of the instant dispositions, and the Defendant served the instant complaint on August 22, 2016, and submitted a written answer on October 2, 2016, and asserted that each of the instant dispositions was specifically as follows.

A) The grounds for the disposition taken to revoke the employment permit of this case (Article 19(1)1 (1) of the Foreign Workers Employment Act) (Article 19(1)1)1 of the Act on the Grounds for Disposition of the Employment Permit of Foreign Workers (Article 19(1)1 of the Act on the Employment Permit of Foreign Workers), Plaintiff 1 set up Plaintiff 2 and 3 in order to avoid the restriction when the number of Korean workers leaving their employment through the adjustment of employment within six months from the date on which the employment permit of foreign workers was commenced and thereby constitutes the period of restriction on foreign workers for three years thereafter. Plaintiff 2

(2) The Plaintiffs established on November 30, 2015, Plaintiff 2’s number of foreign workers who obtained the employment permit from Plaintiff 2 (20) to avoid exceeding the upper limit of the subject, and received the employment permit for each foreign worker against Plaintiff 2 foreign workers in its name (hereinafter “instant 2 cause for revocation”).

B) Reasons for each disposition of employment restriction in the instant case

(1) Plaintiff 1 established Plaintiff 2 and 3 in order to avoid the employment limitation and the upper limit of the employment permit. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 obtained the employment permit under each of their respective names. As such, all of the Plaintiffs constitutes a case where the employment permit for the relevant foreign worker is revoked by fraudulent or other unlawful means (see Articles 20(1)2 and 19(1)1 of the Foreign Workers Employment Act; hereinafter “instant grounds for restriction”).

(2) On April 8, 2016, the Plaintiffs (Defendant 2) employed a foreign worker “F” without the employment permit for foreign workers (hereinafter “F”) and provided labor therefrom, and thus constitutes a case in which a foreign worker is employed without the employment permit (Article 20(1)1 and hereinafter “the grounds for restrictions” under Article 20(1)2 of the Foreign Employment Act).

2) During the first instance trial, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant’s grounds for each disposition as stated in the above paragraph (1) are only disputed, and that the grounds for each disposition as stated in the above paragraph (1) are added to and changed in the new grounds for disposition, and thus, it cannot be the grounds for the instant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, 39, 40, 43, 46 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiffs asserts that each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

1) Each of the instant dispositions taken to revoke the employment permit by the Defendant on the ground that “the Defendant was granted the employment permit for foreign workers by dividing the instant business into three practically different business places” but the Plaintiffs are separate companies with businesses substantially distinguishable from the Plaintiffs, and thus, the Plaintiffs 2 and 3 cannot be deemed to have obtained the employment permit by false or other unlawful means.

B) The grounds alleged by the Defendant in the first instance trial constitute an addition or modification of a new reason for disposition, which cannot be permitted. Thus, the grounds for disposition in the instant case cannot be considered as the grounds for disposition.

C) On the contrary, even if so, Plaintiff 2 and 3 cannot be deemed to have obtained an employment permit by false or unjust means for the following reasons.

(1) The Plaintiff 1 did not have any reason to obtain the employment permit for foreign workers on the ground that it was actually subject to the employment restriction on domestic workers’ employment adjustment, and there was no reason to obtain the employment permit for foreign workers on the ground of other corporations. The Plaintiffs are corporations established for separate purposes, and their representatives and places of business differ. As such, Plaintiffs 2 and

(2) The total number of foreign workers employed by the plaintiffs was 20. The plaintiffs did not obtain the employment permit for foreign workers exceeding 20 employees, the upper limit of the employment permit.

2) Each of the instant dispositions imposing restrictions on employment is unlawful on the ground that each of the instant dispositions imposing restrictions on employment was written in accordance with the above Paragraph 1, and thus, each of the instant dispositions imposing restrictions on employment is also unlawful.

B) The Plaintiffs, including Plaintiff 2, did not employ foreign workers F.

3) Violation of the principle of proportionality

Even if all of the grounds for each of the instant dispositions are recognized, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful as a deviation from and abuse of discretionary power in violation of the principle of proportionality.

B. Determination on the legitimacy of each of the dispositions revoking employment permit in this case

1) The grounds for each of the dispositions revoking employment permit of the instant case

A) The absence of an employment permit revocation disposition against the plaintiff 1

In light of the procedure and method of the disposition of the employment permit for foreign workers as stipulated in the Foreign Employment Act, the employment permit for foreign workers is an individual disposition that individually specifies employers and foreign workers, and the cancellation of such employment permit should also be individually specified against the employer under the employment permit.

Although the Defendant made a prior notification and final notification of each of the instant employment cancellation dispositions against all the Plaintiffs, there was no employment permit in existence with respect to the Plaintiff 1 at the time of each of the instant employment cancellation dispositions, and accordingly, there was no notification of the revocation of specific employment permit.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that there is no disposition to revoke the employment permit for the plaintiff 1 (3) (Therefore, the employment restriction disposition on the ground of the revocation of the employment permit against the plaintiff 1 is not recognized as the grounds for such disposition).

B) Whether a new ground for disposition constitutes an addition or alteration

(1) In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or change other reasons within the scope that is deemed identical to those of the original disposition to the extent that the basic factual relations exist. However, the fact that the basic factual relations are identical refers to that of the same basic social facts in light of the specific facts prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition. In a case where the disposition agency only adds or alters Acts and subordinate statutes only to the extent that it does not change the specific facts specified at the time of the disposition, or specifically indicates the grounds for the initial disposition, it cannot be deemed that the new grounds for disposition are added or modified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du4899, Feb. 8, 2007; 2007Du13791, 13807, Feb. 28, 2008).

On the other hand, the reason for interpreting that it is not allowed to claim a ground for disposition on the ground of a separate fact that is not identical to the basic fact lies in realizing the substantial rule of law and protecting the trust of the other party to the administrative disposition by guaranteeing the other party’s right of defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu603, Jan. 19, 198; 98Du18565, Mar. 9, 199; 99Du6392, Mar. 23, 2001; 200Du8684, Sept. 28, 2001; etc.). Even if the grounds for disposition are abstractly stated in an administrative disposition or notice, if the facts constituting the grounds for disposition already revealed between the administrative agency and the other party to the administrative disposition during the course of the administrative disposition, it is reasonable to view that it is merely a specific ground for disposition that has already been indicated in an appeal litigation.

(2) In full view of the circumstances leading up to the revocation of the employment permit of this case, the content of the relevant documents sent by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission to the Defendant, as well as the Plaintiffs, and the facts and details of the reports pertaining to the Plaintiffs in the course of the instant disposition, and the details of the Plaintiffs’ written opinions submitted to the Defendant, and the process of the lawsuit in the first instance trial (the Defendant asserted in detail and in detail the grounds for revocation of the Defendant’s argument at the first instance trial, and the Plaintiffs only dispute the legitimacy of the aforementioned assertion at the first instance trial, and there was no assertion that the new grounds for revocation was added or changed), it is reasonable to deem that the grounds for revocation of the instant Disposition Nos. 1 and 2 constitutes a specific factual basis that constitutes “the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were aware of the grounds for the disposition in the process of each of the instant disposition in question.”

Therefore, the defendant's argument in the first instance court is merely an expression of the grounds for the disposition specified in the notice of disposition or the notice of disposition. Thus, the grounds for revocation of the first and second dispositions in this case constitutes grounds for the disposition of the cancellation of each employment permit in this case. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on different premise is not accepted.

2) Grounds for revocation of employment permit under Article 19(1)1 of the Foreign Employment Act

Article 19(1)1 of the Foreign Employment Act provides that “a person who obtains an employment permit by fraud or other improper means may revoke the employment permit.” In order to revoke the employment permit on the ground that a person has obtained an employment permit by fraud or other improper means, the mere fact that the content different from the fact of the application for employment permit is included therein is insufficient, and that a person who is unable to obtain an employment permit is pretended to meet the requirements to obtain an employment permit by fraud or other improper means, i.e., the circumstances in which an employment permit was obtained by pretending that the person satisfies the requirements to obtain an employment permit by fraud

3) Whether the ground for revocation of the instant case occurred

A) The Plaintiff 1’s ground for employment restriction occurs

(1) Around January 14, 2014, Plaintiff 1 employed a foreign worker with the employment permit for foreign workers. A domestic worker G, H on March 7, 2014, the six-month period of which, i.e., Korea Workers I, and J.K, respectively, leaving their employment through employment adjustment according to the management needs, and Plaintiff 1 did not constitute grounds for employment restriction pursuant to Article 20(1)4 of the Foreign Employment Act and Article 25 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (i.e., the Plaintiff 1’s business purpose, business scale, and contents of the foreign worker’s employment permit, regardless of the type and scope of the domestic worker’s employment permit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the type of occupation or business of the said domestic worker, which has been adjusted in light of the Plaintiff 1’s business purpose and business size, does not constitute grounds for employment restriction, is rejected).

(2) In full view of the aforementioned provisions, the legislative intent of the Foreign Workers Employment Permit System is to facilitate the supply and demand of human resources needed for industries by allowing a foreign worker to be employed only when a person who does not leave the employment of a foreign worker to the full self-regulation of the market and efforts to employ a foreign worker for a certain type of business but has failed to employ Korean workers. However, it can be said that the purpose of this system is to ensure the balanced development of the national economy by preventing any fear of insufficient employment for Korean workers that may arise due to the employment of a foreign worker. Therefore, the act of receiving the employment permit from a foreign worker on the ground of a new company based on an employment permit based on a foreign worker based on an employment permit for a certain period after obtaining the employment permit for a foreign worker after leaving the employment permit for a certain period of time may be deemed to constitute a case where the act of deceiving the important examination that determines whether to grant employment permit by fraudulent or other unlawful act, and thus, constitutes a case where the employment permit is obtained

B) Whether Plaintiffs 2 and 3 obtained an employment permit to avoid the grounds for employment restriction by Plaintiff 1

(1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following circumstances are revealed in the statements or images of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 7 through 14, 54, and 55.

(A) Whether the project is divided

The Plaintiffs are both corporations aimed at the same kind of business, and Plaintiff 1’s representative L is the father of Plaintiff 2, one of Plaintiff 2’s joint representative directors, and one of Plaintiff 3’s representative directors. L is the Plaintiff 1’s auditor, N is the Plaintiff 1’s director, and M is the Plaintiff 3’s internal director. Plaintiff 2 is a corporation established around 2004, or a corporation established around March 10, 2014, and at the time M takes office as a sole representative director, the management right was transferred to M and changed as at the same time. U entered into a partnership agreement with L on November 10, 2014, between L and L, U is KRW 40 million in cash, KRW 40 million in cash, and KRW 333% in total, and KRW 30% in total, as at the time of Plaintiff 2’s registry of shareholders, and Plaintiff 2 and 30% in total, as at the time of Plaintiff 1’s establishment.

(B) Whether the workplace is divided

Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 had the same location on the business registration certificate as “Seoul-gun P,” while the location of the Plaintiff 3’s corporate register and the business office on the business registration certificate is “Seoul-gun Y, Jeonnam-gun 0, the address is merely the location of the above representative director’s paper, but there is no separate business office. The Plaintiffs also used the office in the Jeonnam-gun P.

Plaintiff 3 received employment permit for foreign workers from among six greenhouses (A to Fdong) located in Q Q in the Jeonnam-gun as his own business facilities, but the above one was already used by Plaintiff 2 as his business facilities, and there was no sign that the above business facilities were Plaintiff 3 in the vicinity of the above business facilities.

Some of the lease objects or lease periods stipulated in each lease agreement entered into between the plaintiffs are overlap. In fact, it is difficult to recognize the substance of the lease because the lessor and the lessee use the lease objects without distinguishing them, and it is doubtful whether the lease deposit is not determined or the rent is actually paid.

The plaintiffs seems to have no physical facilities clearly distinguishable from these ones.

(C) Whether the personnel and labor management independence is independent

The Plaintiffs did not strictly distinguish foreign workers from their places of work according to their affiliation and had them work by mixing them with both foreign workers. Foreign workers did not know the existence of Plaintiffs 2 and 3 or recognize the Plaintiffs as the same company (Plaintiff 1). The workers listed in paragraph 2 of the attached Table 1 list, for which Plaintiff 3 received the employment permit, were confirmed to have worked with Plaintiff 1 and 2 foreign workers at a place classified as Plaintiff 1 and 2’s workplace at the time of the Defendant’s on-site inspection.

Plaintiff 2 and 3 also provided labor to Plaintiff 1 in the name of Plaintiff 2 and 3 to Plaintiff 2 and foreign workers (see Plaintiff 15 et al., Nov. 9, 2016).

In the electronic computer system for applying for the recruitment of nationals, both Plaintiffs 1 and 3 are the same as R, and Plaintiff 3 is not equipped with a separate human facility because there is no record of having subscribed to employment insurance for that employee. At the time of the on-site inspection by the Defendant’s employees, there is no manager for each workplace of the Plaintiffs, and foreign workers were not clearly distinguishable between each workplace and manager of the Plaintiffs.

In light of this, the plaintiffs seems to have not clearly distinguished from each other in terms of human facilities.

(D) Whether the accounts are independent

The plaintiffs 1 deposited the necessary funds into each account in the names of the plaintiffs 2 and 3, the payment of wages or the expenditure of funds was made accordingly, and it is difficult to see that the plaintiffs' accounts were made independently due to the reasons that the salary for the foreign workers permitted to be employed is deposited in the name of the plaintiff 1.

(2) Under the Foreign Employment Act, the employment permit is based on the premise that it is an independent and separate business or a place of business, and in full view of the above circumstances, although the plaintiff 2 and 3 do not have a business or a place of business substantially independent or separate from the plaintiff 1, it can be confirmed that the plaintiff 1's intent to avoid the application of the grounds for employment restriction by the plaintiff 1 (the intention to employ foreign workers with the employment permit of foreign workers and to provide their labor to the plaintiff 1) is the independent business and a place of business, and that the plaintiff 1 and 2 applied for the employment restriction against the foreign workers in this case.

(3) If an employment permit for a foreign worker is obtained by pretending as if the plaintiffs failed to meet these requirements were separate businesses or places of business independently and separately, this constitutes a case where an employment permit was obtained by false or other unlawful means (it is sufficient that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 obtained an employment permit on the ground of a business or place of business not independent or separated, and further, it is not required that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 be denied corporate personality or that the plaintiffs are entirely identical corporations).

(4) Even if the Defendant did not take the employment restriction measure against Plaintiff 1 at the time, the Defendant was entitled to such an employment restriction measure at any time, insofar as there was a ground for employment restriction, and if Plaintiff 1 applied for employment restriction to a foreign worker in his/her name on the ground that there was no employment restriction measure, the Defendant ought to be deemed to have been able to refuse the application for employment restriction against the Plaintiff 1 at that time. Accordingly, the assertion of Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 on different premise is rejected

4) Determination as to the existence of the ground for revocation No. 2

A) Facts of recognition

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the evidence Nos. 3-3, 39-7, 40-1, 40-2, and 43, the Plaintiffs’ number of foreign workers falls under at least 5,900 meters in total, and the upper limit of the employment permit for foreign workers pursuant to the above cultivation area was 20, and the Plaintiff 1 previously obtained employment permit for foreign workers several times, but the period of employment permit for foreign workers V remains at the end of December 2015 (from March 15, 2014 to January 14, 2016). The number of foreign workers employed by Plaintiff 2 maintained 19 annually from November 2015 to March 2016, 2015, Plaintiff 3 may recognize the employment permit for foreign workers from each of the above list No. 2160, Dec. 16, 2015 to Defendant 215 (the name of each of the above foreign workers).

B) Determination

According to the above facts, at the time of December 31, 2015, Plaintiffs 1, 2, 19, and 20 foreign workers were in existence. The number of foreign workers for which Plaintiffs 3 obtained the employment permit for foreign workers for the first time on the same day exceeds 21, and the number of foreign workers for which Plaintiffs 3 obtained the employment permit for the first time on the same day exceeds 20, and the number of foreign workers for which the employment permit for foreign workers was second received was 22.

Therefore, even if foreign workers employed with the employment permit, as seen earlier, did not distinguish the plaintiffs' human and physical facilities from the plaintiffs' business and actually provided labor at a single workplace, the employment permit, namely, the employment permit for foreign workers 1 and 2, which was obtained before the number of foreign workers exceeds 20 workers with a sufficient number of employees, is not likely to be deemed to have been avoided by the upper limit of the number of employees limited by the cultivation area, and thus, the ground for revocation of the employment permit for the plaintiff 2 is not recognized. However, even with the ground for revocation of the employment permit for the plaintiff 1, it is sufficient to recognize the legitimacy of the above plaintiffs 2 as to the above plaintiffs 1 and therefore, it is not unlawful even if each of the employment permit dispositions against the plaintiffs 2 were maintained (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6620, Sept. 24, 2002).

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that Plaintiff 3’s establishment and employment permit application were not distinguished from the Plaintiffs’ workplace’ human and material facilities at the time of applying for employment permit, it is reasonable to deem that the employment permit for the second foreign workers that Plaintiff 3 received was obtained by false or other unlawful means in order to avoid the employment limit of 20 foreign workers. Accordingly, Plaintiff 3 is recognized as the ground for revocation of Plaintiff 2.

5) Whether the principle of proportionality is violated

The revocation of the employment permit for a foreign worker under Article 19 (1) 1 of the Foreign Employment Act is to be revoked in cases where the employment permit was obtained by fraudulent or other illegal means. This is to clarify that the employment permit already obtained was illegally granted due to a cause attributable to the applicant, and thus to restore it lawfully. Therefore, even if the original permission was not granted, the disadvantage suffered by Plaintiff 2 and 3 due to the above disposition was obtained due to obtaining unfair benefits by fraudulent or other illegal means. Therefore, the above disposition of the cancellation of the employment permit cannot be deemed to violate the principle of proportionality. The above assertion by Plaintiff 2 and 3 is rejected.

C. Determination on the legitimacy of each of the employment restrictions dispositions in the instant case

1) Specific grounds for each disposition against the plaintiffs

The defendant considered that the plaintiff could not be seen as a business (the head) actually separate, and the defendant sent a notice of individual employment restrictions to all the plaintiffs, and all the above notice of employment restrictions include not only the cancellation of employment permission, but also the employment of foreign workers who are not permitted.

In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant rendered each of the instant restrictions on employment by putting the grounds for restriction Nos. 1 and 2 on all the Plaintiffs as the grounds for restriction. Therefore, as to the legitimacy of each of the above restrictions on employment, it is further determined below.

2) Whether the employment restriction disposition of this case against the plaintiff 1 is legitimate

A) As seen earlier, there is no disposition to revoke the employment permit against Plaintiff 1 as to the grounds for restriction on Plaintiff 1’s grounds for restriction on this case. Therefore, the grounds for restriction on Plaintiff 1 is not recognized.

The defendant abused the legal personality of the plaintiffs without being equipped with independent human and physical facilities that distinguish the plaintiffs from each other, and thus, the disposition of the employment permit issued by the plaintiff 2 or 3 by the plaintiff 1 to the effect that the plaintiff 1 was subject to the employment permit disposition by deceiving the defendant. In light of this, even if the plaintiffs' human and physical facilities are not independent from each other and it is difficult to regard the plaintiffs as a separate business or business place, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as the same party in the administrative disposition. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

B) The mere fact that it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs' businesses and businesses are classified or independent from one another due to the grounds for restriction under Article 2 of the instant case, is insufficient to recognize them as the actual user of F, and there is no other evidence to recognize them. Thus, the grounds for restriction under Article 2 of the instant case against the plaintiffs

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, the Employment Restriction Disposition against Plaintiff 1 is unlawful.

3) Whether each of the instant restrictions on employment against Plaintiffs 2 and 3 is legitimate

A) As seen earlier, Plaintiff 2 and 3 were subject to the disposition of revocation of the employment permit by fraud or other improper means, and the said disposition is lawful. As to Plaintiff 2 and 3, the grounds for restriction on the instant case’s grounds for restriction are acknowledged.

B) In full view of the reasoning of the first instance court’s argument as to U, one of the co-representatives of Plaintiff 2’s grounds for restriction under subparagraph 5 and the entire purport of the argument as to U, the Plaintiff’s ground for restriction under subparagraph 2, it can be acknowledged that the said Plaintiff employed F without permission for employment of foreign workers and received labor from F. Therefore, the ground for restriction under subparagraph 2 is recognized.

Meanwhile, solely based on the circumstance that it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs' business and workplace are separate or independent from one another, it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' business and workplace as the actual employer of F, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, and therefore, the grounds for restriction on the plaintiffs' business and workplace of F

4) Whether the principle of proportionality is violated

Even if there is a significant disadvantage to the above plaintiffs due to the employment restriction of foreign workers of this case as alleged by the plaintiffs 2 and 3, the employment restriction of foreign workers of this case against the above plaintiffs is aimed at maintaining the effectiveness of the employment permit system for foreign workers, and such public interest is important not to be disadvantageous to the above plaintiffs. Furthermore, considering the method and degree of the above plaintiffs' violation, the employment restriction of foreign workers of this case against the above plaintiffs cannot be viewed as violating the principle of proportionality. The above plaintiffs' assertion is rejected.

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, since the Employment Limitation Disposition against Plaintiff 1 is unlawful and thus the above Disposition should be revoked, Plaintiff 1’s assertion is reasonable, and each of the instant Employment Limitation Disposition against Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 is legitimate, and thus, Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3’s assertion on different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff 1's claim is justified, and each claim of the plaintiff 2 and 3 shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified in its conclusion, all appeals of the plaintiff 2 and 3 and appeals against the plaintiff 1 are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges are accommodated in judges;

On March 2, 2016, the public official in charge was given an unwritten warning.

2) The Defendant did not specify the F’s employer as Plaintiff 2 at the time of each of the instant employment restrictions disposition and during the instant lawsuit.

The plaintiffs can not actually separate the project (head) from each other, and all of the plaintiffs can not be decided.

This article argues to the effect that the disposition is issued, and that the reasons for the employment limit are common to all the plaintiffs.

3) Accordingly, the plaintiff 1 only sought the cancellation of the employment permit restriction disposition against himself, but does not seek the cancellation of the employment permit cancellation disposition.

(c)

4) The Plaintiffs’ entry in the second page of the reference document of May 31, 2017

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.