The case holding that the cancellation of permission for job guidance business by the job guide agency who has collected more than twice the statutory introduction fee constitutes a deviation of discretionary authority.

In relation to job placement services, the case holding that the cancellation of the permission for job guidance services to a business operator who has faithfully operated his/her business without any accident for more than 20 years shall be deemed to constitute a deviation from discretionary authority because the disadvantage suffered by the business operator is too excessive in light of the minor violation of the permission for the job guidance services as the employees of the job guidance office received a total of KRW 326,000 on two occasions other than the fee determined by the Minister of Labor.

Articles 10(3) and 19 of the Act on the Promotion of Employment and Employment, and Article 10(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu9188 delivered on December 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on June 2, 1990, the defendant revoked the permission for the job guidance business of this case pursuant to Article 19 of the Employment Security and Employment Promotion Act and Article 10 (1) 2 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the ground that the plaintiff collected more than the statutory introduction fee and arranged the employment of the business harmful to public morals. On June 2, 1990, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's employee, collected more than 326,00 won in total over two times on November 28, 1989 and February 5, 1990, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence that the plaintiff's employee's employment mediation of the business harmful to public morals, and that the non-party 1, who is the employee, was forced to take full charge of counseling and job placement services for female job seekers, and that it did not violate the rules of evidence that the plaintiff's employee was forced to leave the above job placement service without his own consent.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)