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

A. On October 19, 201, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the status of non-professional employment (E-9) on the basis of the status of stay in the Republic of Korea as of October 19, 201, and was on duty at a domestic company, such as the Gangnam War Station Co., Ltd., and the company, and retired from office on April 22, 2014. (b) The Plaintiff continued to engage in job-seeking activities after the date, while applying for the change of the place of business to the Cheongju Employment Center, which is an employment security office under the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers (hereinafter “Foreign Workers Employment Act”), which is an employment security office under the Act on May 19, 2014, issued a certificate of alien job seeking registration for the effective period from May 19, 201 to August 19, 2014; (c) subsequently, did not apply for the extension of the status of stay in the pertinent workplace to 10 days after the expiration date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. On September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for change of place of business to the Defendant, but asserted that the Defendant rejected such application and sought revocation of the disposition of disapproval, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that there was no fact that the Defendant made the same disposition as the Plaintiff’s assertion.

B. Therefore, according to Article 25(1) of the Foreign Employment Act and Article 16(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, in order for a foreign worker to change his/her business or place of business, he/she shall submit an application for change of the place of business under attached Form 13 or 13-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Foreign Employment Act to the head of the Employment Security Office having jurisdiction over the location of the place of business. There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff submitted the application for change of the place of business to the Defendant on September 16, 2014. In this regard, the Plaintiff visited, around September 16, 2014, made an oral request for change of the place of business to the employee in charge, and responded from the said employee. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no reason to deem that the Defendant rejected the application for change of the place of business that is subject to administrative litigation against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because there is no disposition subject to administrative litigation against the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-A

Judges Lee Il-sung