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

A. On August 30, 2010, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that “the Plaintiff received wages, shutdown allowances, and retirement allowances totaling KRW 2,900,000 from February through April 2010 from LK General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and the Plaintiff’s substitute payment is KRW 2,90,000,00,” and the Plaintiff received substitute payment.

B. On January 29, 2013, the Defendant made a false document, even though the Plaintiff had not worked for the instant company, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff received substitute payment of KRW 2,900,000 on August 30, 2010 (hereinafter “instant change notification”).

A person shall be appointed.

C. On February 8, 2013, the president of Gangnam branch of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service notified the Plaintiff of the payment of KRW 5,800,000,000, in total, of substitute payment of KRW 2,900,000 and additional collection, which was unlawfully received by the Plaintiff according to the content of the instant change notification.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

The Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant change notification is unlawful, since it was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the date the instant disposition became known.

B. Determination

A revocation lawsuit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date the disposition, etc. is known (Article 20(1) and (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act). A lawsuit shall not be filed after the lapse of one year from the date of the disposition, etc. (Article 20(1) and (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act), and when the previous lawsuit is withdrawn and the new lawsuit is changed to be instituted, compliance with the period for filing a lawsuit against the new lawsuit shall, in principle, be based on the time when the lawsuit is changed (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7023, Nov. 25, 2004). As to this case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the return of substitute payment and cancellation of the additional collection disposition against the Plaintiff on Jan. 29, 2013, it is evident that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the purport of subparagraph 1, subparagraph 1, and subparagraph 1, and each of subparagraph 1, and the Plaintiff’s modification to the purport of the purport of the purport of the instant lawsuit that the Plaintiff received the notice from the entire Plaintiff’s date of the purport of the lawsuit was changed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges' Branch Office Counter

Judges Domination