1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant imposed a charge for compelling the performance on the Plaintiff on September 9, 2008.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 15, 2007, the Plaintiff was engaged in the taxi transport business, etc. with 140 regular workers employed by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s employees A and 114 employees (hereinafter “instant workers”) committed an act of interference with the Plaintiff’s business in response to the decision of the postponement of the payment of value-added tax reduction. As such, on November 15, 2007, the Plaintiff rendered a indefinite disposition of suspension of service on the instant workers (hereinafter “instant suspension of service”).

B. On February 14, 2008, the instant worker asserted that the instant suspension of work on board constituted unfair suspension of work on board, and filed an application for remedy with the Defendant on April 7, 2008, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff an order for remedy (hereinafter “the instant order for remedy”) stating that “within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written ruling, the instant worker is reinstated to his former former job, and that “if the instant worker has provided normal labor during the period of suspension of work on board, the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been received would have been paid would have been paid to the instant worker.”

C. Upon the lapse of May 26, 2008, the period for payment stipulated in the instant order for remedy, the Defendant issued a notice of a non-performance penalty to the Plaintiff on May 27, 2008, stating that “non-performance” was unpaid, i.e., the amount equivalent to the wages from November 15, 2007 to May 15, 2008, on the ground that “the details of non-performance were commenced on the work of the instant workers from May 16, 2008, but did not fully pay the amount equivalent to the wages.” On September 9, 2008, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty on the Plaintiff on September 28, 2008 on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to perform the “matters of non-performance” (=2.5 million won x 113).

hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"

D. Meanwhile, on April 30, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination of the instant remedy order, and the same year.

8.29. An action seeking the revocation of an appeal filed by the Central Labor Relations Commission against a dismissal ruling rendered by the Central Labor Relations Commission;