Whether an order for additional payment of retirement allowances by a labor inspector is an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation.

In a case where a labor inspector issued an order to pay an additional retirement allowance to the Plaintiff Company for the purpose of soliciting the correction thereof before a judicial police officer receives a petition for requesting the Nonparty to receive retirement allowances from the Nonparty, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation since it does not take any legal effect on the order itself.

Articles 105 and 30 of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Commissioner of the Labor Agency

The plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney, who is a public official belonging to the defendant, sought a decision that the administrative disposition that the head of the Korea Industrial Accident Insurance Office should include the meal expenses paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as of July 28, 1971, in the average wage, should be revoked.

According to Gap evidence No. 1 (written order not to pay additional retirement allowances), which does not conflict with the establishment, the defendant issued an order not to pay additional retirement allowances on July 28, 1971 to the plaintiff company on July 28, 1971 as the chief labor inspector holding the office of the Industrial Accident Insurance and the head of the office of Korea and the head of the office of the office of the industrial accident insurance and the head of the office of the office of the plaintiff company for the plaintiff company " regardless of its name, the school meal expenses that must be paid uniformly or periodically to the plaintiff company is not changed in the wages, and thus, the defendant applied the average wage calculation to the plaintiff company and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not pay the retirement allowances for meal expenses to the petitioner by August 13, 199, and reported the result by August 11, 71, and issued an order not to pay the retirement allowances specified in the purport of the claim that "the above order is merely an act of recommending the labor inspector to correct it, and

It is not necessary to conclude that an administrative disposition means a single act that establishes a right pursuant to laws and regulations, requires obligations, and causes other legal effects with respect to a specific case as a juristic act of an administrative agency under public law.

However, Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act provides that "in the case of death or retirement of a worker, the employer shall pay wages, compensations, and all other money or valuables within fourteen days if the right holder violates this provision," and Article 103 (5) of the Labor Standards Act provides that "the labor inspector shall perform the duties of a judicial police officer provided for in the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to the crime of violation of this Act". Meanwhile, according to the purport of the oral argument, the head of the office office in the south Industrial Accident Insurance and the chief labor inspector shall work for the plaintiff company, and the payment of retirement allowances by average wages calculated by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who retired from office for the plaintiff company, without providing meals to the plaintiff company, constitutes a violation of Article 30 of the above Act, and thus, the defendant's order to correct such violation cannot be seen as an infringement of the plaintiff's right to receive retirement allowances by first issuing an order to correct the violation of Article 103 (5) of the above Act. Thus, the court's order cannot be seen as the above violation of the Labor Standards Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main lawsuit is an illegal administrative disposition that is not an administrative disposition that is not an administrative disposition that is the object of the administrative litigation, which is the object of the administrative litigation, and thus, the administrative litigation shall be brought to the defendant unless otherwise prescribed by other Acts. In the case of this proposal, the administrative agency shall be the head of the office for industrial accident insurance and the chief labor inspector. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for this case. The plaintiff's lawsuit is illegal in this respect, unless there are special circumstances, and the administrative litigation shall be brought to the plaintiff after the judgment of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff shall be brought within one month from the date when he becomes aware of the administrative disposition. In light of the purport of the argument as stated in the evidence No. 12-1, 2, and 13-2 of the evidence No. 12-2, the plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed by being aware of the above order from July 28, 1971 to September 25, 199.

Judges Yong-Ank, Myun (Presiding Judge)