2019Nu3677 Order to return and revocation of a decision to additionally collect additional collection, etc.

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

Attorney Lee Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiffs

The Deputy Director General of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

Incheon District Court Decision 2017Gudan50024 Decided January 22, 2019

July 12, 2019

August 16, 2019

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed. 2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

As to the order of return of KRW 2,28,930 to Plaintiff A on September 2, 2016, the order of return of KRW 2,228,930; the order of return of KRW 3,836,830 to Plaintiff B; the order of additional collection of KRW 3,830; the order of return of KRW 3,836,830; the order of return of KRW 1,654,340 to Plaintiff C; the order of additional collection of KRW 1,654,340; the order of return of KRW 360; the order of return of KRW 1,735,510; the order of return of KRW 1,735,510; the order of additional collection for KRW 360; the order of return of KRW 2,50; the order of return of KRW 360; the order of additional collection for KRW 360; the order of return of KRW 2,507; the order of additional collection for KRW 3830,506.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked. On September 2, 2016, the order of return of KRW 228,930,228,930, the order of return of KRW 2,228,930, the order of additional collection of KRW 228,228,930, the order of return of KRW 3830,836,830, the order of additional collection of KRW 1,654,340, the order of return of KRW 1,654,340, additional collection of KRW 1,735,510, the order of return of KRW 1,735,510, the order of additional collection of KRW 1,50, KRW 1,510, KRW 1,507, KRW 507, KRW 500, and the order of return of KRW 3,807, KRW 286,205, KRW 367,284,205, and

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss or delete the following among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable in view of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs to this court, and it is also identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition of the judgment that there is no error as otherwise alleged by the plaintiffs. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8

The ○○ 4th 15th 15th "Plaintiffs" are as follows: 0th 6th 6th 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2

Each "80%" of the 7th parallel parallel 4th parallel 8th parallel 17th parallel 17th parallel shall be "80%".

○ 7 side 7 side 7 side 7 "the Disposition of this case" is "each Disposition of this case".

○○ 7, 15, and 17, respectively, are "less than 80%" and "less than 80%" are "less than 80%.08, 2, "the judgment, etc." are considered as "see the judgment."

○ 10 pages 1, “In the absence of a fact that advance payment has been made to the AJ, most of the payments have not been made in cash”.

○○ 10 pages 20,21 are as follows. “The Defendant cannot be deemed as a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority. Furthermore, the Defendant may be deemed to have taken each of the dispositions of this case against the Plaintiffs following the investigation results and additional investigation procedures in accordance with the guidance of the business owner’s illegal training administrative disposition guidelines, etc. As such, each of the dispositions of this case cannot be deemed to have violated the guidance of the business owner’s illegal training administrative disposition guidelines, etc. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ allegation in this part

○ 11 side 2 of the 11th page "only a measure to return" shall be "measures to return".

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the remaining claims except for the part of the plaintiffs' claim for the revocation of the defendant's respective loan restriction measures among the claims of this case are dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, appointed judge;

Judges Lee Jae-chul

Judges Kim Gin-han