2011Guhap4512 Revocation of rejection of re-employment of materials whose employment period expires

A

Head of Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Agency

January 27, 2012

February 15, 2012

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection of the application for extension of employment period to the plaintiff is revoked (the re-employment and re-employment of the plaintiff whose employment period expired among the purport of the claim seems to be a clerical error in the application for extension of employment period).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as a citizen of Sri Lanka, was employed by the Plaintiff from January 8, 201, to operate B, and worked for B. The Plaintiff’s employment period expires on July 21, 201.

B. On April 13, 201, the Administrator of the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Agency notified C of an application for extension of employment period when a foreign worker, who is expected to have the employment period (three years) expired, wishes to re-employment.

C. On July 13, 201, 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 Workers Livers to Foreign Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 29 of July 5, 2011), C visited the Employment Support Center of the North Korean Site of the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office to submit the "application for extension of the period of employment for the plaintiff's employment to the expiration of the employment period", and returned without submitting the application after hearing that the deadline for submission of the application for extension to the plaintiff was due from the public official in charge (Article 14-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act), and if the employment contract period of a foreign worker remains more than three months, the deadline for submission of the application for extension is no later than 45 days before the expiration of the employment period, and thus, the deadline for submission to the plaintiff is no later than 15 days before the expiration of the employment period).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A. According to the above facts of recognition, upon hearing from the public official in charge on July 13, 201 that C had the intent to submit an application for extension of the period of job-seeking activities against the Plaintiff, it is evident that C had not voluntarily submitted the application, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant refused to accept the application for extension of the period of job-seeking activities of C. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful since there is no disposition seeking cancellation.

B. Even if a household disposition exists, the agency is not the defendant but the Administrator of the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed against a person who is not the agency.

C. In addition, the instant lawsuit was filed on July 13, 201, which was the date of disposition, on November 21, 201, which was the 90-day period from July 13, 201, and thus, is unlawful as the period during which a lawsuit may be filed pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act is expired.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is deemed to be one mother and is unlawful, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The presiding judge, judge and judicial police officer

Judges Civil Service Bureau

Judges Kim Yong-nam

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.