2015Guhap50829 Revocation of business suspension

Korea Industrial Health Association of an incorporated association

The President of the Central Local Labor Agency

July 16, 2015

August 13, 2015

1. The part of the business suspension imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on February 23, 2015 on the Gyeonggi-do Industrial Health Center is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension on February 23, 2015 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a specialized health management institution designated by the Minister of Employment and Labor that specializes in health management business, and the Plaintiff is entitled to be entrusted with the duties of health managers according to the human resources and facilities of each center operated by the Plaintiff, and the number of employees is designated to the extent of such designation. The Plaintiff’s designation of the Gyeonggi Industrial Health Center, the Ansan Industrial Health Center, and the Gyeonggi Industrial Health Center operated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each center of this case”) is as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

B. As a result of the inspection of each center of this case around December 2014, the Defendant revealed that each of the above centers was entrusted with the duties of a health manager in excess of the limit designated between January 2012 and October 2013 (hereinafter “the instant designated limit”).

A person shall be appointed.

C. Accordingly, on February 23, 2015, the Defendant rendered each of the instant dispositions suspending the duties of each of the instant centers against the Plaintiff for a period of one month pursuant to Articles 16(3) and 15-2(1)4 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act on the ground that the instant act exceeded the respective designation limits.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that each center of this case did not exceed the designated limit due to unavoidable circumstances and its excess was insignificant, since 2014, each center is operated without any limit of designation, a long time has passed since the act of violation was already committed, users may cause severe inconvenience to users or harm public interests, and the employer would be subject to imposition of administrative fines because it is difficult to find an institution specialized in health management to entrust health management business during the period of suspension of business of the Plaintiff’s respective center, and it does not comply with the disposition and equity of the head of other local employment and labor office, the disposition of this case is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary authority.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as listed in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) The following circumstances, i.e., for 12 months from January 2012 to October 2013, the Gyeonggi Industrial Health Center: (i) for 16 months, for 17, 17, 472 employees, and 5,023 employees of the Ansan Industrial Health Center; (ii) for 16 months, for 16 months, for 2 months from the Gyeonggi Industrial Health Center, 201, for 16 months from the date of its operation; (iii) for 4 years from the date of its operation; (iv) for 5 months from the date of its operation; (iv) for 1 month from the date of its operation; and (v) for 1 month from the date of its respective dispositions, the number of employees of the Gyeonggi Industrial Health Center is likely to have been continuously operated without any minor degree of violation; and (v) for 1 month from the date of its business suspension under each disposition, it is difficult for the relevant specialized health management institution designated by the Defendant to find out any inconvenience that it could not have been operated within the Gyeonggi Industrial Health Center.

2) The Gyeonggi-do Industrial Health Center: Provided, That in the case of the Gyeonggi-do Industrial Health Center, the following circumstances, i.e., the number of workplaces exceeding the designation limit was conducted in September, 2012 and October, 201; the number of workplaces exceeding the designation limit was 1 in September, 201; 2 in October; 60 in the number of workers; 330 in October; 200 in the number of workplaces where the Gyeonggi-do Industrial Health Center can perform health management business; 300 in the number of employees; 400 in the number of workplaces where the Gyeonggi-do Industrial Health Center could perform health management business; 30,00 in the number of employees; 40,00 in the number of employees; 40,00 in the number of employees; 40,000 in the number of workplaces exceeding the designation limit of the Gyeonggi-do Industrial Health Center was already equipped with human resources and facilities in September, 2012; and 4, in light of the purport of the application for change of the Gyeonggi Industrial Health Center’s.

Conclusion

Therefore, the part concerning the Gyeonggi Industrial Health Center and the Ansan Industrial Health Center among each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate, and the part concerning the Gyeonggi Industrial Health Center is unlawful. As such, the part concerning the Gyeonggi Industrial Health Center among the claims of this case concerning the Gyeonggi Industrial Health Center is justified, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judgment of the presiding judge;

Prosecutor General-Type

Judges Hong Sung-gi

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.