(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.3.26.선고 2018구합16142 판결

B. After investigating the case of reporting the violation of the Employment Security Act against the Plaintiff on September 28, 2018, the Defendant rendered two-month disposition of suspension of business against the Plaintiff on the ground that the job offerer's name, name, address, contact number, etc. is not clear, and the job offerer's name, address, contact number, etc. are published on the job offerer's internet information website and D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

On October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition suspending the business for one month from the Defendant on the same ground, and then posted the job offerer’s name, trade name, as well as the name, address, and telephone number of a person in charge of employment, on the Internet homepage, to the job offer advertisement column on which the job offerer’s identity is uncertain at the time of the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition is illegal because there is no ground for disposition

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 25 of the Employment Security Act delegates to the Presidential Decree the matters to be observed by a person who runs a business providing employment information. Accordingly, Article 28 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Security Act provides that "no job offer advertisement in which the identity of a job offerer is uncertain because the name of the job offerer (or the name of the job offerer) is not indicated or because the job offerer's contact address is indicated as a letter box, etc." In addition, under Article 36(1) of the Employment Security Act, if a person who runs a business providing employment information violates the above matters to be observed in a case where there is a concern that the job offerer might harm public interests, such measures as suspending his/her business may be taken. The purpose of such provision is to ensure the minimum stability of job-seeking by enabling job seekers

2) According to the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s publication of job offer advertisements, the identity of which is not reliable, through the Internet homepage, constitutes a case where it is acknowledged that such advertisements might undermine public interest. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case against the Plaintiff is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

A) On April 3, 2018, the defendant confirmed the contents of job offer advertisements that are linked to the "C" website on May 15, 2018, and published on the "D" website, the fact that the job offering company's trade name is difficult to be viewed as the ordinary trade name or business name due to the job offering company's "day payment", "Japanese 1, etc.", "red red 1," and "24 c business", but the name of the job offering officer is not stated differently, and the job offering officer's name is not stated in the job offering officer's name, but only the job offer advertisement that is written on the "G", "H", "H, I", "K, "M", "O", and "P", etc. In addition, the above advertisements are not separately stated in the place of work and are stated in the mobile phone number in the case of the Si/Gu or most cases.

B) As for the above job offer advertisements, the name and location of the business place and the person in charge are not accurately indicated, job seekers are bound to contact with the phone number of the person in charge of job offer advertisements on the basis of only the type of business and without any specific information on the job offerers. Therefore, such job offer advertisements constitute “where the identity of the job offerer is not certain” under Article 28 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Security Act.

C) On October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that, after being subject to the disposition of business suspension for one month from the Defendant on the same ground, only the job offerer’s identity has been published and that many time and efforts have been made to this end. However, among the job offer advertisements published by the Plaintiff, it is confirmed that there was an advertisement whose identity of the job offerer is not certain as seen above, and in the case of “D” website after the instant disposition, it is made a member by entering inaccurate information without due process, and the “C” website is still included in the job offer advertisements that are described only in “G”, “ Q,” “R, etc.

D) Furthermore, the purpose of allowing job seekers to identify job offerers by stating information such as job offerer name in job offering advertisements is to prevent job offerers from being exposed to job offerers or from abusing to criminal acts by allowing job offerers access to job offerers based on the minimum information recognized in job offering advertisements, in addition to job security of job seekers. In addition, job offering advertisements at the time of the instant disposition are most types of occupations that require permission as entertainment tavern, and advertisement contents are aimed at recruiting female job seekers. In light of the fact that job offering advertisements posted by the Plaintiff are likely to harm public interests.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.