(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.2.6. 선고 2012구합4366 판결

The defendant's refusal to accept the plaintiff's re-contract or re-employment application filed with B on October 16, 2012 (the plaintiff's assertion date is an error).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Sri Lanka as a citizen of Sri Lanka for job-seeking activities on November 10, 209, and the Plaintiff’s expiration date of job-seeking activities on November 9, 2012. The Plaintiff has been employed from December 14, 2010 to B (hereinafter “B”).

B. Pursuant to Article 18-2 of the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers on October 16, 2012, Article 14-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers, C visited the Employment Support Center of the Daegu Regional Employment Agency in order to submit the “application for extension of the employment period for the expiration of the employment period of the Plaintiff” to the “application for extension of the employment period of the Plaintiff’s employment period.” However, as the number of Korean nationals insured by the Defendant’s public officials exceeds the maximum permissible number of foreign workers, C visited the Plaintiff’s re-employment application without submitting an application.

C. On October 17, 2012, the Defendant submitted a “report on Employment Change, etc. of Foreign Workers” to the effect that the Plaintiff is dismissed as a result of its management necessity on October 17, 2012. ② On October 31, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted a “written scheduled departure return” to the effect that the Plaintiff will depart from the Republic of Korea on November 8, 2012 with the expiration of the period of stay on October 31, 2012. [Grounds for recognition]] There is no dispute, Party A’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and evidence Nos. 1 through 4-2, 6, and 8-2, 6,

2. Related statutes;

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

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. The defendant asserts that B did not have any disposition asserted by the plaintiff since B did not submit to the defendant an application for extension of employment period to the plaintiff.

B. The issue of whether an administrative disposition is deemed an administrative disposition cannot be determined abstractly. In specific cases, an administrative disposition is a law enforcement with regard to specific facts 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. A certain act of an administrative agency has the same external form as an administrative disposition which objectively gives disadvantages to the people without any legal basis. If the other party to the act is recognized as an administrative disposition, it is necessary to take measures to eliminate disadvantages or apprehensions from the disadvantage or apprehensions of the people derived from the act of the administrative agency. In light of the above, whether there is disadvantage or apprehension of the other party to the act should be determined by considering not only the degree of the administration by the rule of law, the level of the rights of the people, but also the attitude of the relevant administrative agency related to the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

C. As seen earlier, C, an employee of B, sought an explanation that the Plaintiff’s re-employment application is impossible from the public official in charge of the Defendant on October 16, 2012, and did not submit an application for extension of employment period. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that there exists no administrative disposition seeking revocation.

4. Conclusion

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