(영문) 대구고등법원 2018.6.22. 선고 2017누7154 판결

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and thus, the reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Details to be added; and

In the case of a party, the Plaintiff asserts that the basis provision of the instant disposition [the decision of the Foreign Human Resources Policy Committee (the Minister of Employment and Labor No. 2015-390, Dec. 23, 2015) made pursuant to the delegation of the Foreign Human Resources Employment Act] violates the freedom of occupation and violates the principle of equality, thereby infringing on the freedom of occupation and violating the principle of equality, and that, even if not, it should be strictly interpreted. The ground provision of the instant disposition cannot be applied to the Plaintiff, not the original contractor, and thus, there

However, in light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as well as the case of the same kind (Seoul Administrative Court No. 2016Guhap80687 (Plaintiff's case) 15 March 2018, Seoul High Court 2017-72982 (Seoul High Court 2017-72982) - Supreme Court 2017Du72720 (Trial failure rejection), the provision of the ground of this case cannot be deemed to be unconstitutional, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the grounds of the disposition of this case exist, so the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.