2012Nu1264 Revocation of a disposition restricting the payment of costs, etc.

KTWn Co., Ltd.

Daejeon Head of Local Employment and Labor Agency

Daejeon District Court Decision 201Guhap4932 Decided May 30, 2012

December 26, 2013

January 6, 2014

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the Defendant’s claim for the cancellation of the order of return of KRW 703,029,180 as of October 14, 201 shall be revoked. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s claim for the cancellation of the order of return of KRW 703,029,180 as of October 14, 201 shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 5% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 95% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s order to return KRW 126,670, which was issued against the Plaintiff on October 14, 201, the order to additionally collect KRW 126,670, the order to limit the payment of expenses between October 17, 2008 and October 16, 2009, and the order to return KRW 703,029,180, all of which are revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim against that part shall be dismissed.

[Judgment of the first instance court is dismissed as a claim for cancellation of an order to return KRW 126,670 and an order to additionally collect KRW 126,670,00, and ② a disposition to limit the payment of expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition to restrict the payment”) and a claim for cancellation of an order to return KRW 703,029,180 (hereinafter “the instant order to return the training expenses”) were accepted, and as only the Defendant appealed against this, the instant disposition to restrict the payment and the instant order to cancel the disposition to return the training expenses are subject to adjudication of the court).

1. Details of the disposition;

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether a lawsuit regarding the right to request the revocation of the return or disposition of training expenses in this case is legitimate

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit regarding the claim for the revocation of the return of training costs.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 8-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 8-2, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter the same), which is the basis for the disposition of restricting the payment of the instant lawsuit and the disposition of returning training fees, violates the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation, and thus it is found that the Defendant revoked the disposition of refunding training fees ex officio on Oct. 17, 2013. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the part of the lawsuit for revoking the disposition of refunding training fees in this case among the instant lawsuit was already extinguished, and the lawsuit for revoking the disposition of cancelling the disposition of cancelling the restriction period is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. Whether the instant restriction on payment is legitimate

The underlying law of this case is Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act, and as recognized earlier, the above provision of the law was found to have been unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on August 29, 2013. Thus, the pertinent provision of the law, which was made pursuant to the above provision of the law, cannot be exempt from the illegality without any need to further examine the Plaintiff’s assertion.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the restriction period of this case among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and the restriction period of this case is revoked. Since the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the restriction period of this case concerning the return of the restriction period of this case among the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair differently from this conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this part is accepted and the above part of the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the lawsuit for cancellation of the restriction period of this case is dismissed. The part concerning the claim for cancellation of the restriction period of this case among the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as the conclusion, and this part of the defendant'

The presiding judge shall receive the award of merit;

Judges Excursion Ship Owners

Judges Doo-rayia

1) Since the Defendant’s revocation of ex officio on October 17, 2013 was notified only to the Plaintiff of the revocation of the instant restriction period’s revocation, the instant restriction restriction disposition ought to be deemed to continue to exist externally.