1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, who operates B, delegated the Defendant with the employment insurance management duties, etc. from January 13, 2009 to October 2013, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff’s employees C who worked for a director in B shall be May 6, 2013 and the same month.

7. Upon obtaining approval from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that his departure report should be treated as a recommendation agency on April 30, 2013.

C. On May 8, 2013, the Defendant reported the reason for severanceing from office as a recommending agent.

After that, the Plaintiff reported the ground for severance from employment of C to an individual position as a recommendation agency, and on November 19, 2013, the Ministry of Employment and Labor rendered a false report on the ground that the Plaintiff reported the ground for severance from employment insurance in violation of Article 15 of the Employment Insurance Act, thereby imposing an administrative fine of KRW 2 million on the Plaintiff.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, testimony of a witness at the trial, testimony of a witness at the trial and purport of whole pleadings】

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable for compensation to the plaintiff, inasmuch as C resigned due to personal circumstances, but the defendant believed C's words only without confirming or noting it, and reported C's reason for severance from employment to the competent agency as a recommendation office and thereby, C's reason for severance from employment to pay an administrative fine of KRW 2 million as seen earlier.

Therefore, although the defendant was the person who did not confirm the reason for the reason for the severance from employment of C directly to the plaintiff, or who did not confirm the reason for the severance from employment of C to the recommendation agency, the following circumstances, i.e., the witness C at the trial, who obtained the approval that the reason for the severance from employment of the plaintiff would be treated as the recommendation agency, and notified the defendant of the reason for the severance from employment to the recommendation agency, and C, who stated that he had notified the defendant of the above circumstances and notified him of the reason for the severance from employment to the recommendation agency.