(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.12.11.선고 2015구단33237 판결

In the first place, on June 23, 2014, the defendant's disposition to revoke the confirmation of the escape from the report on the change of employment for foreign workers against the plaintiff.

Preliminaryly, the defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on June 19, 2014 is revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 4, 201, the Plaintiff is a Pakistan employee who was enrolled in the Korean Mamagine Pium Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Magineium”).

B. From May 8, 2014 to May 28, 2014, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea with leave from the company, and did not work without any contact even after the period of leave expires. On June 5, 2014, Article 23(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers (hereinafter “Foreign Workers’ Employment Act”), deeming that a foreign worker is absent from work for at least five days without any justifiable reason, such as obtaining the employer’s approval, and submitted a report on the change in employment of foreign workers to the employees’ employment center.

D. On June 12, 2014, on the part of the employee in charge of the Magine Employment Center issued a written confirmation on June 23, 2014, on the part of the employee in charge of the Magine Employment Center, on the following grounds: (a) confirmed that the employee in charge of the Magine Employment Center visited the Magine Pium in order to determine whether he/she actually

E. On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff visited the Kanmang Employment Center, and the staff in charge of the foreign team of the Center had provided the Plaintiff with a guidance to the effect that it is possible to permit the Plaintiff to work in the original place of work, if agreed with the Kanmangium. On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff visited the Kanmang Employment Center again on June 23, 2014, and provided the Plaintiff with a notice that there is no plan to re-employed the Plaintiff in the Kanmangium’s Pium, and the staff of the Center provided the Plaintiff with a guidance on

F. Accordingly, on January 27, 2015, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission filed an administrative appeal, and on which January 27, 2015, claimed that the Plaintiff filed an oral application for change of place of business, but it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff filed an application for change of place of business with respect to the assertion that the Defendant rejected the registration of a foreign worker’s job seeking on June 19, 2014, and that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant issued a ruling to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 7, Evidence Nos. 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

Since the existence of an administrative disposition, which is the subject of a lawsuit in an administrative litigation, is a lawful requirement for the lawsuit, the lawsuit must be dismissed in an unlawful manner unless the disposition seeking revocation by the Plaintiff exists (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6707, Aug. 26, 1997).

The expression of intent to file an application with an administrative agency shall be clearly and accurately stated and in principle, according to Article 17(1) of the Administrative Assignment Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6212,6229, Oct. 23, 2008). Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Foreign Employment Act provides that a foreign worker shall submit an application for change of place of business in attached Form 13 or attached Form 13-2 to the head of an employment security office in order to change his/her business or place of business pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Act.

Even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff visited the defendant's center to make an oral application for business change, and even if the plaintiff made an oral application, he/she shall make an oral application.

The mere expression of explicit and conclusive declaration of intention against the defendant cannot be deemed as having filed an application for change of the workplace. Even if the defendant provided the plaintiff with the guidance that the change of the workplace is impossible while guiding the procedure for filing a return on the overdue payment of wages and the departure procedure, it cannot be deemed as a rejection disposition of job-seeking registration that is subject

On the other hand, according to the above facts, the Korean Manaium submitted a report on employment change, etc. to the Manaium employment center, and the defendant confirmed the facts, and issued a document stating the certificate of employment change, etc. on June 23, 2014 upon the application of the Mamanaium, which is merely an administrative disposition that directly affects the plaintiff's specific rights and obligations.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and the defendant's defense pointing this out is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed.