1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 27, 2017 to November 16, 2017, A was employed by the Plaintiff Company as an employee of stuffed truck driver, and was subject to unfair dismissal from the Plaintiff. On November 22, 2017, A filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Defendant.

B. On January 22, 2018, the Defendant issued a remedy order to pay KRW 7,342,640 to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the wages that would have been received if the Plaintiff had worked normally during the period of dismissal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written determination, along with the determination that the dismissal order issued by the Plaintiff on November 16, 2017, as well as the determination that the dismissal order issued by the Plaintiff on November 16, 2017, which was deemed unfair (hereinafter “instant remedy order”), and sent the certified copy of the said written determination on February 12, 2018.

C. On February 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as dissatisfied with the instant order for remedy, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on April 11, 2018, and the original written judgment was served on the Plaintiff on May 14, 2018.

However, the Plaintiff did not institute an administrative litigation on the instant remedy order within 15 days thereafter.

On the other hand, on April 23, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing a charge for compelling the performance of KRW 5 million on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the above order within the execution date (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground of Article 33 of the Labor Standards Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion of this case is in accordance with the order of remedy of this case, which is based on the recognition of the worker status of A.

However, A does not correspond to the plaintiff's employee as a branch entry engineer who is an individual business operator, and from this point of view, Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office also A shall be the plaintiff.