2016Nu64069 Decided non-permission of the extension of the period for filing an application for business change

A

The Administrator of the Gyeonggi Local Labor Agency;

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Gudan3748 Decided August 26, 2016

November 16, 2016

December 7, 2016

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 defendant's rejection of the extension of the application period for the change of workplace made to the plaintiff on July 28, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning for this case is identical to that of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the addition of the following, and thus, this case is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Additional determination

In light of the legislative intent of Article 25(3) of the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers (hereinafter referred to as “instant provision”), the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the reason why a foreign worker could not seek a suitable place of business constitutes an exception, is that it constitutes a ground for exception.

However, in establishing a system for the introduction of foreign workers, legislators have a broad legislative discretion to form a content based on policy decisions taking into account the national employment market, the national economic situation, national security, and maintenance of order. Therefore, barring any unreasonable and unfair legislative intent, legislators’ policy decisions should be respected, and broad legislative discretion is recognized, and the freedom of choice of foreign workers is embodied only when legislators specifically provide for the content of the system by law in accordance with such policy decisions. Restriction on the period of permission for the alteration of foreign workers’ workplace, which is stipulated in the provision, is intended to protect the employment opportunities of domestic workers and prevent foreign workers who entered the workplace for the purpose of labor from staying in Korea without their intent to work in the workplace. In short, the Plaintiff’s argument that the period of permission for the alteration of workplace would collapse in principle without restriction on the change of workplace, and that the basic framework of the Foreign Workers Employment Act, which is premised on short-term stay in order to prevent foreign workers from being able to find out the conditions continuously, thereby making it difficult for the Plaintiff to interpret the proviso of the proviso of 290 months to the Constitutional Court.

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed on the ground that it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable with this conclusion. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit

Mobilization by the presiding judge

Judges Yoon Jong-dae

Judge Lee Jae-soo