1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 30, 2016, and August 31, 2016, upon receipt of a notice of termination of an employment contract from the Plaintiff and on October 17, 2016, A and B (hereinafter referred to as “A, etc.”) concluded a labor contract with the Plaintiff, which is a social welfare foundation, and worked as a caregiver, filed an application for unfair dismissal, etc. with the Defendant.

B. On December 15, 2016, the Defendant issued a remedy order ordering the Plaintiff to “A, etc. to be reinstated to their original position within 30 days from the date of receiving the written adjudication, and to pay the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been received if the Plaintiff had worked normally during the period of dismissal” (Article 3-1 and 3). The remedy order was served on the Plaintiff on January 4, 2017.

C. On February 3, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted a notice of the result of implementing a remedy order to the effect that “A, etc. was returned to the Defendant as of December 19, 2016, and is expected to pay the amount settled in installments,” and paid KRW 1,902,890 to A on February 28, 2017, KRW 452,640, and KRW 2,622,350, and KRW 3,649,600 to A on March 3, 2017, respectively.

On March 20, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant remedy order to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 33 of the Labor Standards Act on March 20, 2017, 5,000 won for non-performance penalty [the amount applied by 50% to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Defendant failed to comply with the instant remedy order by the due date, i.e., taking into account the following factors: (i) KRW 2,500,000 for non-performance penalty (the degree of responsibility attributable to the violation; (ii) partial failure to comply with the order for remedy and effort; (iii) KRW 5,00,000 for the standard amount of imposition; and (iv) the scale of the place of business 5 to 29) x 2 (the person subject to

By February 3, 2017, the Plaintiff’s reason for imposition B was to reinstate the worker A, etc. to their original position and to restore the amount of wages to their original position even though it was paid the amount of wages, and the commission did not pay the amount of wages, thereby making the first notice of imposition of enforcement fines on February 7, 2017.