1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

As a company established on March 20, 2001, the purpose of the business is to manage general facilities of buildings, etc., and approximately 460 full-time workers are employed.

As a part of the project execution, the Plaintiff is performing the management of the ground B building on land outside Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

On July 2012, the Plaintiff applied for approval of exclusion from the application of the provisions on hours of work, recess and holidays stipulated in Chapters IV and V of the Labor Standards Act against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff’s 57 employee, from among his/her employees, falls under “persons engaged in surveillance work” as prescribed by Article 63 subparag. 3 of the Labor Standards Act and “persons engaged in surveillance work” (hereinafter “monitive work”). According to Article 63 subparag. 3 of the Labor Standards Act, the above approval authority is deemed to be the Minister of Employment and Labor, but the above approval authority was delegated to the head of the local employment and labor office pursuant to Article 106 of the Labor Standards Act

The defendant approved on the 24th of the same month.

Accordingly, security guards employed by the plaintiff and performed guard duty in the building of this case are also recognized as surveillance workers, and the provisions on working hours, rest hours, and holidays under the Labor Standards Act do not apply.

However, on January 19, 2015, the Defendant: (a) examined three security guards of the instant building, which is recognized as a surveillance employee, as above; and (b) revoked the Plaintiff’s approval of surveillance employees on the ground that the three security guards are concurrently engaged in pure security services, such as patrol and monitoring of visitors, and thus, they cannot be deemed as a surveillance employee (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings is legitimate. The plaintiff works in the building of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case.