2015Gudan1463 (Application for Re-employment Permit) The revocation of revocation

A

The head of the Central and Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

July 20, 2016

August 31, 2016

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on June 5, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Pakistan who entered the Republic of Korea with the employment permit for foreign workers for three years from June 8, 201 to June 7, 2014 pursuant to the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

B. In accordance with Article 18-2 of the Act, the Plaintiff applied for the issuance of employment permit to the Defendant on June 5, 2014, along with the representative of the branch office of Pakistan Co., Ltd. that was the Plaintiff’s employer at the time, in order to obtain an extension of employment period prior to the expiration of the employment period of three years. Under Article 18-2 of the Act, the Defendant applied for employment permit to a foreign worker whose employment contract period up to the expiration date of employment period is not less than one month prior to the expiration date of employment period of the relevant worker’s employment. The Plaintiff did not file an application with the purport that the Plaintiff’s employment period expires on June 7, 2014 and does not meet the above requirements. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on July 7, 2014. However, the said commission merely recognizes the fact that the Defendant made an oral guidance on the terms and conditions of employment permit, and this is directly changing the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations or legal interests.

The defendant's above act was rejected on January 27, 2015 on the ground that it cannot be seen as a disposition subject to administrative appeal since it was not caused by Dong.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 10, Eul evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

A. The defendant's assertion

Since the plaintiff was served with the written adjudication on the administrative appeal and filed the lawsuit in this case more than 90 days, the period of filing the lawsuit was imposed. The defendant's act is merely a statement of opinion, and thus, it cannot be said that any right or obligation was created to the plaintiff or that there was a direct change in legal interests. Therefore, it cannot be deemed a disposition

B. Therefore, according to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it is recognized that the written adjudication on administrative appeal was served on the Plaintiff on February 11, 2015, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit only on August 25, 2015 after the lapse of 90 days from the Plaintiff, and the period of filing the lawsuit was imposed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is illegal because it is against the time limit for filing the lawsuit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

For the transfer of judge