1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered on April 28, 2014 to the Plaintiff on the return of the application for the difference payment of childcare benefits shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is working at Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

From January 2, 2011 to January 1, 2012, and from October 31, 2012 to October 30, 2013, childcare leave was granted.

The Plaintiff received childcare leave benefits according to the monthly ordinary wages calculated by the Defendant in relation to the aforementioned period of childcare leave.

B. On April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted an application to the Defendant stating that “The Defendant is obligated to pay the difference between bonuses, long-term service allowance, meal allowance, transportation subsidy, and customized welfare card amount to ordinary wages, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the childcare leave already paid and the childcare leave already paid based on the property-fixed ordinary wages as above.” The Defendant submitted an application to the Defendant stating that “The Defendant is obligated to revoke the partial payment of the land for childcare benefits to the Plaintiff. The Defendant shall pay the difference between the childcare leave and the childcare leave already paid to the Plaintiff, calculated based on the property-fixed ordinary wages by including bonuses, etc. (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. In order to verify the purport of the instant application on the same day, the employee in charge of the Defendant called to the Plaintiff B with the delegated labor attorney B with all authority over the application for childcare leave.

B replyed to the purport that “The purport of the application is the re-determination of the temporary retirement benefits due to the ordinary wage’s re-determination. If a formal objection is not a justifiable claim such as a request for examination or administrative litigation, I would like to confirm the corresponding Defendant’s treatment opinion. Even if the peremptory period has expired under the Guidelines for the Management of Employment and Labor Request, I would like to confirm the corresponding Defendant’s treatment opinion

On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a document stating that “The purpose of the submission of the instant application is not to request for review, and thus, it is not to request the return disposition. It is not to request the future guidance on the progress of administrative litigation procedures.”

E. The Defendant rendered the instant case to the Plaintiff on April 28, 2014.