1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 15, 2007, the Plaintiff (around February 10, 2009, the trade name of the Plaintiff changed as at the present from Maho Transportation Co., Ltd.) was a company that employs 140 full-time workers and operates a taxi transport business, etc., and the Plaintiff’s employees and 114 employees (hereinafter “instant workers”) committed an act of interference with the Plaintiff’s business by orders against the decision of the postponement of payment for the reduction of value-added tax (hereinafter “instant suspension of service”).

B. On February 14, 2008, the instant worker asserted that the instant suspension of work on board constituted an unfair suspension of work on board, and filed an application for remedy against the Defendant (2008da257). On April 7, 2008, the Defendant issued an order for remedy to the Plaintiff that “if the instant suspension of work on board constitutes an unfair suspension of work on board, the instant worker is reinstated to his original post within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written ruling, and the instant worker would normally be paid the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been received if the said worker had provided work on board during the period of suspension of work on board.” (hereinafter “the instant order for remedy”).

C. After receiving the instant order for remedy, the Plaintiff, on May 16, 2008, ordered the instant workers to be reinstated to their former office, but did not pay the amount equivalent to the wages stipulated in the instant order to the instant workers until May 26, 2008, which was the due date stipulated in the instant order for remedy.

Accordingly, on September 9, 2008, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 282,50,000 [2.5 million x 113 (excluding a full-time woman B and a retired worker C among the instant workers] on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the instant remedy order.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On the other hand, on April 30, 2008, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant remedy order, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (Seoul High Court Decision 2008No. 316).

8. 29.