(C)Revocation of recognition of 2018Nu11213 and revocation of revocation of the restriction on entrustment or recognition of the relevant course for six months;

Multilata Co., Ltd.

The Director General of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office

Changwon District Court Decision 2018Gudan11228 Decided July 25, 2018

October 10, 2018

October 24, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

In order to revoke the judgment of the first instance court, the revocation of the recognition made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 26, 2017 and the revocation of the restriction on the recognition of the entrustment of the pertinent course (eight processes) for six months shall be revoked. In preliminaryly, it is confirmed that the recognition granted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 26, 2017 and that the restriction on the entrustment and recognition of the pertinent course (eight processes) are invalid.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following matters, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

[Supplementary Provisions in Relation to a State Claim]

The plaintiff, within 90 days from the date when the defendant became aware of the disposition, notified the defendant as if he had filed an administrative litigation within one year from the date when he became aware of the disposition, and the plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit within the period of wrong guidance, and therefore, the plaintiff asserts that Article 27 (5) of the Administrative Appeals Act should be applied by analogy to comply with the period of filing.

However, Article 27(5) of the Administrative Appeals Act to the effect that if an administrative agency has mistakenly notified the administrative agency of the fact that an appeal is filed within a longer period than the statutory period of the appeal, the appeal shall be deemed to have been filed within the statutory period of the appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du6916, May 8, 2001). In addition, according to the evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the defendant's notice of the period of the appeal contains the phrase "it is possible to file an administrative litigation within 90 days from the date when the administrative agency became aware of the disposition". The plaintiff did not properly confirm the period of the appeal even if he could have known of the existence of the restriction of the period of 90 days if he became aware of the fact of the disposition, and otherwise, there is no evidence to recognize that the plaintiff could not comply with the period of the appeal due to any cause not attributable to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(Y) Even if the plaintiff could not comply with the period of filing a lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff, considering the overall purport of the arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, it is sufficiently recognized that the disposition of this case has grounds for the disposition of this case, and in light of the overall circumstances, it shall be dismissed as it is difficult to deem that the disposition of this case was deviates from or abused from discretionary power. However, in this case, only the plaintiff appealed against the plaintiff, who is the appellant under the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, the main claim part of the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be revoked and the judgment

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the senior judge

The transfer of judge

Judge Lee Jin-hun