2018Nu23541 Revocation, such as an order to promote employment, etc.

A

Attorney Kim-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Administrator of Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency

Busan District Court Decision 2018Guhap1214 Decided October 11, 2018

March 20, 2019

April 17, 2019

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. On June 27, 2017, the order issued by the Defendant to return the incentives for employment promotion, the disposition of additional collection, and the disposition of restriction on payment is revoked

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion in the trial room, and thus, the reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion in the trial room

The plaintiff asserted that "the plaintiff, immediately after becoming aware of the disposition in this case, found F, who is the employee in charge of the defendant, as well as the husband Eul," and that "F, within 180 days from the date of the disposition, filed an administrative appeal," and provided the plaintiff and E with information on the procedure for objection. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on July 6, 2017 within 18 days from the date of receipt of the disposition in this case, which is within 180 days from the date of receipt of the disposition in this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's administrative appeal should be deemed to have been filed within the period for a trial pursuant to Article 27 (5) of the Administrative Appeals Act." However, the plaintiff's statement of No. 24 (E's factual confirmation) in this case is between E and the plaintiff's husband, and there is no evidence to believe that the disposition in this case (Evidence No. 3) is not easily accepted within 90 days from the date of receipt of the disposition in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Revision of Judges

Judges Ooman