1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 3, 2007, the Plaintiff was serving as a driver (entrusted employee) of advanced transportation company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and retired from office on the part of the Plaintiff.

B. (1) The filing date of the Plaintiff’s petition: The content of the petition on March 3, 2010: The non-party company did not pay overtime night work allowances and annual shock allowances, and did not grant paid leave allowances; and the non-party company did not pay retirement allowances within 14 days after the Plaintiff’s retirement (the “act subject to petition of this case”), and thus, the non-party company’s investigation into the violation of the Labor Standards Act and request.

C. The defendant's response date on March 22, 2010 to the result of handling the reported case (hereinafter "the response of this case"): The response date shall be March 22, 2010: regardless of the fact of the act subject to the appeal of this case, the extinctive prescription of wage claims or prescription of public prosecution for the above act shall not be contested as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act

【Ground of disposition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 3, 5, and 6's evidence, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's defense prior to the merits does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

B. An administrative disposition, which is the object of a judgment, shall be an act of an administrative agency under the public law, which is an act of establishing a right in relation to a specific matter, ordering an obligation in accordance with the law, or giving rise to other legal effects, and shall in itself be an act which has a direct relationship with the rights and obligations of the people. It cannot be the object of a general, abstract, statute, internal rule, and internal project plan, which are not directly changing the specific rights and obligations of the people

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Du33 delivered on September 10, 1994, etc.). However, according to the above facts, the reply of this case was made by the non-party company as to whether the act of this case was completed in accordance with the relevant statutes.