2018Nu30848 Revocation of business suspension

A Stock Company

The head of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

Suwon District Court Decision 2017Guhap65532 Decided December 12, 2017

May 25, 2018

July 6, 2018

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension against the Plaintiff on May 18, 2017 shall be suspended until this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of business suspension against the plaintiff on May 18, 2017 is revoked.2. The purport of the appeal is to revoke

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

This decision is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the following contents:

The Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act in 2nd 6th 6th 2nd 2nd 6th 2nd 3th 201 is "Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 197 of October 17, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply)". The "Framework Act on Industrial Safety" in 5th 0th 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 6th 2nd 2nd 2nd 3th 3th 13, 14th and 6th 4th

○ 4 pages 10,11, and 12 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 197, Oct. 17, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) are the same as “former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act”. 6 pages 6, taking into account the purpose into account, etc., the term “in consideration of the purpose, etc.”. The term “Enforcement Rule of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, Oct. 17, 2017)” of the 8th 12th e.g., the term “former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act” as

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and according to the records of this case, it is recognized that there is an urgent need to suspend the validity of the above disposition in order to prevent damage which can be caused to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the validity of the above disposition might be significantly affected public welfare due to the suspension of the validity of the above disposition. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below

The presiding judge, appointed judge;

Judges Shin Jin-hee

Judges Lee Jae-chul