1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The domestic labor supply business that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on May 27, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 25, 2013, the executives of the Committee (a non-governmental organization organized for the development of Section C, such as securing additional joint owners of Section C and early completion works) established the Plaintiff, who is a regional unit trade union, and was issued a certificate of report on the establishment of a trade union from the D market on February 26, 2013.

On April 4, 2013, the number of members of the Plaintiff is 20.

B. On April 4, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a new application for a labor supply business under Article 33 of the Employment Security Act (hereinafter “instant application”) to the Defendant on the ground that “450 persons per month: 450 persons per month, 5,400 persons per year, 7 companies to be supplied: E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and K: C Port.”

C. On May 27, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application by applying Article 33 of the Employment Security Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the grounds as follows.

(1) In cases falling under paragraph (3), summary of increase in the number of workers supplied due to increase in water capacity, extension of wharfs, etc.

Although it can be seen that there is a lawsuit, the increase in the number of suppliers does not necessarily mean that the new permit for the supply business is inevitable; ② The Plaintiff’s executive officers, etc. are difficult to deem that they can be professionally engaged in the wharf-related business under the B Committee; ③ In the case of some wharfs including the supply target companies, the supply of workers is inappropriate in the status of completing the reorganization of the system for the supply of harbor manpower; and in the case of other wharfs, the participation of the majority of the labor supply business operators is highly likely to lead to smooth wharf services and stability of employment

D. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on July 1, 2013 regarding the instant disposition, but was dismissed on February 18, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of this case is based on the nature of the disposition of this case.