(original)Disposition against the illegal receipt and demand of youth internship system 2017Nu10183

Space Aviation Industry Corporation

Head of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency

Changwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap52680 Decided January 10, 2017

May 24, 2017

July 12, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of and suspension of support for internship support agreements added in the trial, and the revocation of the disposition prohibiting the employment of internship for three years shall be dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On July 20, 2016, the defendant revoked the disposition of restitution of 11,390,000 won against the plaintiff and the termination and suspension of support of the internship support agreement, and the prohibition of hiring an intern for three years (from June 24, 2016 to June 23, 2019) (the plaintiff added a claim to seek the cancellation of the prohibition of hiring an intern for three years at the trial).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the judgment as described in Paragraph (2). Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (it is not different from the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court, even considering the additional allegations and evidence

2. Additional determination

On July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff added the Defendant’s claim seeking the revocation of the disposition against the Plaintiff on July 20, 2016, the termination and suspension of support, and the prohibition of hiring an internship for three years (from June 6, 2016 to June 23, 2019).

On the other hand, pursuant to Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the Plaintiff may modify the purport or cause of the claim to the extent that it does not change the basis of the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du9407, Nov. 26, 199). The effect of complying with the legal period of the new claim after the amendment pursuant to Article 265 of the Civil Procedure Act takes place when the amendment is made to the court, in principle, at the time of the amendment of the claim. The Plaintiff filed a claim seeking the cancellation of the above provision of the internship Support Convention at the time of the institution of the instant claim, the suspension of support, and the cancellation of new employment of the internship for three years, but at the time of the first instance trial after the withdrawal of the above claim, the Plaintiff filed a claim to amend the purport of the claim on Oct. 29, 2016. Thus, the Plaintiff is obvious in this court. The part of the claim seeking revocation of the above disposition becomes unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit, and it is dismissed, and the part of the lawsuit in this case concerning the termination and suspension of support of the above internship support agreement added to the court of first instance, and the revocation of the disposition prohibiting the employment of internship for three years is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the senior judge

Judge Lee So-young

Judges Conciliation Exchange