2011Nu27386 Demanding revocation of the imposition of charges for compelling compliance

Tae forest Housing Management Corporation

Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap9119 decided July 14, 2011

December 28, 2011

February 8, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The imposition of enforcement fines of KRW 2.5 million imposed on the Plaintiff on January 14, 2011 shall be revoked.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and thus, it is cited as the ground of the judgment of this case in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the plaintiff emphasizes again in the appellate court, and

In the appellate court, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case imposing a non-performance penalty on the plaintiff is unlawful on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with the order for remedy in the absence of a final and conclusive order for remedy in this case.

However, Article 33(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that “The Labor Relations Commission shall impose a non-performance penalty not exceeding KRW 20 million on an employer who fails to comply with the order for remedy by the deadline for implementation after receiving the order for remedy.” Therefore, it does not require the confirmation of the order for remedy when the Defendant imposes a non-performance penalty on an employer on the ground of the employer’s failure to comply with the order for remedy. Therefore

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case should be postponed or suspended pursuant to Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, since the Plaintiff and A have settled with the Plaintiff including the order for remedy for unfair dismissal after the issuance of the order of remedy for unfair dismissal of this case.

However, Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act provides that "the Labor Relations Commission may impose a charge for compelling compliance, ex officio or upon the employer's request, where it is evident that the employer has made an objective effort to implement the order for remedy but it is difficult for the employer to comply with the order due to the unknown whereabouts of the worker, or where it is difficult to comply with the order for remedy due to a natural disaster, incident, or other unavoidable circumstances." Article 15(1) provides that "the Labor Relations Commission shall, ex officio or upon the employer's request, suspend the imposition and collection of the charge for compelling compliance and return the charge for compelling compliance already collected, upon the cancellation of the order for remedy by the Labor Relations Commission in accordance with the review decision of the National Labor Relations Commission or the court's final and conclusive judgment." Therefore, apart from whether the Defendant may withdraw ex officio the disposition of this case or suspend the imposition and collection of the charge for compelling compliance on the ground that the Plaintiff has a right to cancel the disposition of this case

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.

Constitution of the presiding judge, senior judge

Judges Noh Jeong-il

Judges Jeong Jae-ok