beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 2-1, evidence 3, evidence 5-8, evidence 1, evidence 3-2, evidence 3-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 4, evidence 5, evidence 6-1, evidence 6-2, evidence 7-1, and evidence 7-2.
From November 11, 2006 to November 10, 2009, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant, a corporation established for the purpose of service security business, quarantine business, etc., and retired from office as Chigh School security guards.
B. On May 25, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Seoul Eastern District Office for the violation of the Labor Standards Act against C, the Defendant’s representative director of the Seoul East District Office, for the violation of the Labor Standards Act. On January 21, 2010, the Seoul East District Office notified the Plaintiff of the result of the investigation to the effect that “The Plaintiff is recognized to engage in the business for which the Plaintiff obtained approval for exclusion from the application of surveillance enforcement employees, and the overtime work allowance, holiday work allowance, and holiday work allowance are not applied, and it is difficult to check the Plaintiff’s actual working hours despite macrosive materials, such as security devices and duty log, and the Plaintiff’s payment of excess work amount due to the violation of the Minimum Wage Act is not recognized, but the amount of excess work amount due to the violation of the Minimum Wage Act is not recognized.”
C. On February 21, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Seoul Eastern District Office to verify the “approval of exclusion from the application of surveillance workers;” and (b) the Seoul East District Office sent the Plaintiff the reply that “A high school, the place where the Plaintiff worked, as the Plaintiff, applied for exclusion from the application of surveillance workers,” around February 28, 201.”
In addition, on February 23, 2011, the plaintiff is the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency of Seoul.