logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.13 2015구단33602
감시적근로승인취소처분의취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a medical corporation operated from April 1987 to Osan City Industrial Complex 69-27 (Vacancy) (hereinafter “Plaintiff Hospital”) with 90 full-time employees.

B. On May 7, 2001, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant for exclusion from the application of the provisions on working hours, rests and holidays stipulated in Chapters 4 and 5 of the former Labor Standards Act as “persons engaged in surveillance work” under Article 61 subparag. 3 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007), and Article 12(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Labor Standards Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 281 of Jul. 24, 2007; hereinafter the same), as stipulated in Articles 61 subparag. 3 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007).

C. In the Plaintiff hospital, 20 patients’ guardians work for 24 hours. D.

However, as a result of the investigation of the actual working conditions of the Plaintiff Hospital’s guardian, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that retroactively cancelled the Plaintiff’s employee’s approval of surveillance workers, on September 14, 2015, on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s work constitutes a surveillance worker under Article 63 subparag. 3 of the Labor Standards Act, on the ground that, as a result of the investigation of the actual working conditions of the Plaintiff Hospital, the mental tension that could not be neglected to monitor the characteristics of the hospitalized patient, and the Plaintiff’s work is also carried out in addition to the patient monitoring work, and that the hours that the Plaintiff may freely use are eight or more hours.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The guardians working at the Plaintiff’s asserted hospital are to monitor patients simply and assist with the services of nurses, etc. intermittently.

arrow