(영문) 대구지방법원 2011.11.16. 선고 2011구합2332 판결

A. The Plaintiff entered Vietnam’s Republic of Korea on June 17, 2008 for job-seeking activities. The Plaintiff’s expiration date of job-seeking activities is June 16, 201 when three years elapsed from the date of entry.

B. From June 1, 2010, the Plaintiff has been employed by Nonparty B as a motor vehicle parts manufacturing business entity of Nonparty B.

C. On June 9, 2011, employees of C visited the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Agency in order to submit an application for extension of the Plaintiff’s employment period pursuant to Article 18-2 of the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers, and Article 14-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Employment, etc. of Foreign Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 29, Jul. 5, 201) to “application for extension of the Plaintiff’s employment period”, and did not submit an application after hearing the statement that the Plaintiff is not subject to extension application due to the lapse of the deadline for submission by the public official in charge and is not subject to an application for extension on the computer (Article 14-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act) (the deadline for submission of an application for extension is no later than 45 days before the expiration of the employment period, and if the employment period of a foreign worker remains more than three months, the deadline for submission of an application for extension to the Plaintiff is no later than 15 days before the expiration of employment period).

D. On June 14, 201, B submitted to the Defendant a certificate of reasons for the alteration of the Plaintiff’s employment relationship upon the expiration of the contract period, and the Plaintiff’s preliminary return on June 17, 201, stating that the Plaintiff would depart from the Republic of Korea upon the expiration of the contract period. At the same time, at the same time, the application period for extension of the employment period has exceeded the extension period, but the Plaintiff requested a re-employment permit for re-employment of the Plaintiff.

E. On June 22, 2011, the Defendant sent a reply that the extension of the period of employment was impossible because the Plaintiff did not submit an application for extension of the period of employment to B by 15 days before the expiration of the period of employment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 3 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

The plaintiff filed an application for re-employment extension with the plaintiff 10 days prior to the expiration of the plaintiff's period of stay, but the defendant asserted that he rejected the application unfairly.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the employee C was not subject to an application for extension of the period of employment to the plaintiff by the public official in charge of the work, and the submission deadline for the application for the extension of the period of employment to the plaintiff is excessive. It is reasonable to view that the defendant's response on June 22, 2011 is merely a civil petition response, and it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because there is no disposition that seeks cancellation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge, judge and judicial police officer

Judges Civil Service Bureau

Judges Kim Yong-nam

Attached Form

A person shall be appointed.

참조조문

-외국인근로자의 고용 등에 관한 법률 제18조의2

-외국인근로자의 고용 등에 관한 법률 시행규칙 제14조의2

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2012.2.15. 선고 2011구합4512 판결

-대전지방법원 2012.4.4. 선고 2011구합3328 판결

-부산지방법원 2012.4.5. 선고 2011구합4702 판결

-의정부지방법원 2011.10.4. 선고 2011구합2267 판결

-창원지방법원 2012.2.2. 선고 2011구합103 판결