1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of dismantling or removing asbestos.

After conducting an inspection with the Plaintiff on August 16, 2019, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff did not meet the human resources standards under Article 80-6 and [Attachment Table 10-4] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 272, Dec. 26, 2019; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”) from January 27, 2019 to July 26, 2019, and notified the Plaintiff of the disposition on August 16, 2019.

On September 9, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition suspending the work of dismantling or removing asbestos for three months from September 11, 2019 to December 10, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the instant human resources standards and violated Article 38-4(6) of the former Occupational Safety and Health Act (amended by Act No. 16272, Jan. 15, 2019; hereinafter “Act”).

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole argument by the plaintiff as to the purport of the whole argument, Eul, who is qualified under subparagraph 1 (b) of the human resources standard of this case, retired on January 26, 2019, but Eul re-entered on March 1, 2019 and worked until April 1, 2019, and the plaintiff employed Eul, who is qualified under subparagraph 1 (b) of the human resources standard of this case, as from March 1, 2019 to August 1, 2019, and D respectively, from July 27, 2019 to July 27, 2019, the period during which the plaintiff was unable to meet the human resources standard of this case is no more than 33 days in total from January 27, 2019 to February 28, 2019.

The period during which the Plaintiff failed to meet the above criteria is short of time, and the Defendant did not perform the work of dismantling or removing asbestos during that period, and the Defendant may impose a penalty surcharge not exceeding KRW 100 million in lieu of the business suspension if there is a concern about harm to the public interest. As in the instant case, it is impossible to recover the Plaintiff to order the business suspension in lieu of the business suspension.