1. The Defendant’s disposition of rejecting an application for the payment of the difference in childcare benefits against the Plaintiff on April 28, 2014 shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

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

From January 17, 201 to January 16, 2012, and from September 3, 2012 to September 2, 2013, childcare leave was granted for each childbirth.

The Plaintiff received childcare leave benefits according to the monthly ordinary wages calculated by the Defendant during the period of childcare leave as follows.

The monthly ordinary wage paid in October 25, 201 for the period of childcare leave on the date of childbirth shall be KRW 1,466,480 as of January 16, 201, and KRW 500,000 as of July 3, 2012, the basic wage of KRW 1,625,380 as of September 2, 2013, and KRW 40,000 as of September 2, 2012.

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

In order to verify the purport of the application of this case on the same day, the employee in charge of the defendant called the labor affairs consultant B who submitted the application on behalf of the plaintiff.

B responded, “The purport of the application is the re-determination of the temporary retirement benefits due to the re-determination of ordinary wages. If a formal objection is not a justifiable claim, such as a request for review or administrative litigation, I would like to confirm the corresponding defendant’s opinion. Even if it is a peremptory person in accordance with the Guidelines for the Management of Employment and Labor Review, I would like to confirm the corresponding defendant’s opinion on the treatment

C. On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff’s submission of the instant application to the Defendant is not a request for examination.