logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2012.5.9. 선고 2011구합14211 판결
체당금지급대상사실확인통지취소처분취소
Cases

2011Guhap14211 Revocation of revocation of a notice of confirmation of the eligibility for substitute payment

Plaintiff

A

Defendant

The Administrator of the Gyeonggi Local Labor Agency;

Conclusion of Pleadings

March 28, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

May 9, 2012

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim

On April 20, 201, the defendant revoked the notification of confirmation of the eligibility for substitute payment made to the plaintiff on April 20, 201.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 1, 2008, the Plaintiff joined “C” operated by B and retired on January 1, 2010.

B. B, upon filing an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures on June 28, 2010, received a decision on commencing rehabilitation procedures on July 22, 2010 from Suwon District Court 2010dan36, which was decided on March 8, 2011, and the said decision on discontinuing rehabilitation procedures became final and conclusive on March 3, 2011.C. 1) On March 23, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for confirmation of the cause of payment of substitute payment that the Plaintiff failed to receive wages from B properly.

2) On April 13, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the confirmation of the ground for the payment of substitute payments that the Plaintiff would have received 6,929,850 won in total for the last three months that the Plaintiff had not received from B, and then confirmed that the rehabilitation procedures for B had already been abolished at the time of the said confirmation notice, and revoked the said confirmation notice (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed it on August 16, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On December 16, 2010, the Plaintiff became aware of the commencement of rehabilitation procedures against B, and that it is possible to apply for a substitute payment for the unclaimed wages from B, and applied for a substitute payment for another person upon visiting the Gyeonggi-do branch office of the Korea Employment and Labor Agency in China to submit a written petition and seeking to apply for a substitute payment, but did not file an application for a substitute payment without receiving a written petition from the employee in charge. After that, the Plaintiff tried to apply for a substitute payment again after being investigated by the labor inspector, on the ground that the overdue payment has not become final and conclusive, the Plaintiff failed to apply for a substitute payment if the investigation is completed on the ground that the labor inspector did not receive a substitute payment for the reason that the application for a substitute payment was not final and conclusive, and the Plaintiff failed to comply with the request for a substitute payment from the employee in charge, and then failed to comply with the request for a substitute payment before and after the closure of rehabilitation procedures for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s application for a substitute payment for another person was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

On the other hand, the plaintiff's failure to apply for a substitute payment before the rehabilitation procedure against B is abolished does not have any evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff is due to a labor inspector who did not receive a delay in handling the petition case by the employee in charge and the plaintiff's application for a substitute payment. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge, Kim Jong-sik

Judges Hong-soo

Judges Kang Jeong-hee

Attached Form

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

arrow