1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 25, 2013, the executives of the Committee (a non-governmental organization organized for the development of Section C, such as securing additional joint owners of Section C and early completion works) established the Plaintiff, who is a regional unit trade union, and was issued a certificate of report on the establishment of a trade union from the D market on February 26, 2013.

On April 4, 2013, the number of members of the Plaintiff is 20.

B. On April 4, 2013, pursuant to Article 33 of the Employment Security Act, the Plaintiff issued a new application for a labor supply business (hereinafter “instant application”) to the Defendant on the ground that “450 persons per month: 450 persons per month, 5,40 persons per year, 7 companies to be supplied: E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and K: C Port.”

C. On May 27, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application by applying Article 33 of the Employment Security Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the grounds as follows.

(1) In cases falling under paragraph (3), summary of increase in the number of workers supplied due to increase in water capacity, extension of wharfs, etc.

Although it can be seen that there is a lawsuit, it does not necessarily mean that the increase in the number of supply personnel does not necessarily mean that the new permit for the supply business is inevitable (hereinafter “one point for non-permission”); ② The Plaintiff’s executive officers, etc. are able to be professionally engaged in the wharf-related business under the B Committee (hereinafter “non-permission ground 2 point”); ③ In the case of a certain wharf including the supply company, the supply of workers is unclear as the completion of the reorganization of the port manpower supply system; and in the case of other wharfs, it is determined that the participation of multiple labor supply business entities would not help facilitate the implementation of wharf duties and stability in the employment relationship (hereinafter “three point for non-permission grounds”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on July 1, 2013 regarding the instant disposition, but was dismissed on February 18, 2014.

【Ground of recognition” has no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul's 1, 6 evidence, and oral argument.