(영문) 대구지방법원 2011.5.25. 선고 2010구합2953 판결

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a visa (E-9-2) on August 21, 2007, and served respectively in D Company B from August 21, 2007 to September 11, 2008, from October 13, 2008 to August 30, 2009, from D Company C, from September 11, 2009 to August 20, 201 to August 20, 201.

B. Nonparty Company employed Plaintiff pursuant to Article 8(4) of the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers (hereinafter “Foreign Employment Act”), and the expiration date of the employment permit period for Plaintiff is August 20, 2010.

C. As the Foreign Employment Act amended on October 9, 2009 came into force on April 10, 2010, the defendant sent a notice to the defendant that "in principle, to re-employed a foreign worker whose employment period has expired three years, including the non-party company, at 209 places of business, whose employment period has expired on June 1, 2010, the defendant must apply for the extension of employment period to the defendant 45 days prior to the expiration date of employment (the re-employment is impossible at the time of application whose employment period expires less than 45 days is less than 45 days, but if the employment contract is maintained for not less than 45 days prior to the expiration date of employment period, it is possible to apply by not later than 15 days)".

D. On August 6, 2010, Nonparty E’s representative E visited the Defendant’s office to ask whether it is possible for the person in charge to apply for the extension of employment period to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant’s person in charge was informed of the lapse of the time limit for application for the extension of employment period to the Plaintiff through the computer inquiry, and the F returned to F without submitting an application for the extension of employment period to the Plaintiff. The grounds for recognition are without dispute. The fact that there is no dispute over the issue of whether there is evidence No. 2, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

Although the non-party company applied for the extension of the employment period before the expiration of the employment period, it is unlawful to refuse to receive the application for the extension of the employment period against the non-party company around July 2010 on the ground that the period of application for the extension of employment period under the amended Foreign Employment Act has expired.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion is as follows.

Since the non-party company did not submit to the defendant an application for extension of employment period against the plaintiff, the defendant does not have any disposition asserted by the plaintiff, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful

B. Determination

The issue of whether an administrative disposition is deemed an administrative disposition cannot be determined abstractly, and in specific cases, an administrative disposition is a law enforcement with regard to a specific fact conducted by an administrative agency as the public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. Considering that an administrative disposition is a law enforcement with regard to a specific fact conducted by an administrative agency as the public authority, the administrative disposition is determined individually according to which the administrative disposition satisfies the requirements of its principal, content, procedure, and form, and which act of an administrative agency has the same external form as an administrative disposition which gives objectively disadvantage to the people without any legal basis. If the other party to the act is recognized as an administrative disposition, the other party to the act must take measures to eliminate disadvantages or apprehensions from the disadvantage or apprehensions of the people derived from the act of an administrative agency, the decision should also be made by taking into account the degree of legal administration at that time, the level of citizens' awareness of rights, as well as the attitude of the relevant administrative agency related to the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1261

On August 6, 2010, the plaintiff's assertion that the above F visited the defendant's office on August 6, 2010 and asked the plaintiff about whether it is possible to apply for the extension of employment activity period against the plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff applied for the extension of employment activity period to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's argument that the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application for the extension of employment activity period on August 6, 2010 is without merit, and

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.