1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

. Therefore, it is not possible to request the return disposition (excluding a person who is in progress of the procedure for requesting a review).

In addition, the guidance on the progress of the administrative litigation in the future is reviewed.

“The document stating the content was presented.”

On April 28, 2014, the Defendant notified an attorney C and a certified public labor attorney B of the return of the application for the difference in childcare leave benefits, stating the following matters, and returned the instant application except D’s application (hereinafter “return of the instant application”).

1. Related matters;

(a) An application for the difference of childcare benefits with 13 persons, such as E (the' 14.4.24);

(b) Summary of rejecting the application;

Agency: Attorneys C and one other (the' 14.25 April 25, 194)

2. On April 25, 14.25, an applicant except for a person who has already been in the process of a request for review on April 25, 14. The applicant's request for the return of the application for the difference in temporary retirement benefits for childcare shall be rejected, such as E, and 12 applications shall be rejected.

* A person who is already in process of a request for review: D

3. In addition, the administrative litigation shall be 90 days from the date the existence of the original disposition is known, and the period of reference shall be less than one year from the date the existence of the original disposition is available.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1-1 (the same shall apply to Eul evidence 12), Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 6, 9, 11 (including the main numbers where the serial numbers are not indicated) and the purport of the whole pleadings as to whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate or not, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's return of the application of this case to the defendant as a rejection disposition against the plaintiff's application for temporary retirement benefits on April 24, 2014, and sought revocation of the rejection disposition, the defendant is merely a return of the application of this case to the plaintiff's return, and it is not an administrative disposition that refuses the plaintiff's application for temporary retirement benefits, and the return of the application of this case for family affairs of this case