1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders revocation below, shall be revoked.

Defendant.

On November 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of each disposition listed in the “Disposition List” attached to the Defendant against the Plaintiff. However, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. Although the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the first instance judgment, the first instance court rejected the Plaintiff’s appeal. However, the first instance court rejected the Plaintiff’s appeal.

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an appeal. The judgment of remanding the case prior to the remanding, reversed and remanded the part concerning the Defendant’s land pay and restriction on payment (which refers to each disposition listed in paragraphs (1) and (3) of “the part concerning the Defendant’s land pay and restriction on payment” (attached Form 1 and (3); hereinafter “instant site pay” and “instant restriction on payment”) and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal.

Therefore, in the first instance trial and the second instance trial prior to remand, the part of the order for return and the decision for additional collection as stated in Paragraph (2) of the Attached List of Disposition (hereinafter “instant order for return, etc.”) among the Plaintiff’s claims is finalized to be lost by the judgment of the Supreme Court on partial reversal and transmission, and the subject of the judgment by the court is limited to the instant land pay disposition and the restriction on payment.

Details of the disposition

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 5 to 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance).

The Plaintiff’s assertion (related to the determination of unconstitutionality) as to the lawfulness of the instant site wage disposition and the restriction on payment restriction disposition (amended by Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter “former Employment Insurance Act”) in Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 10339, Jun. 4, 2010; hereinafter “former Employment Insurance Act”), which served as the basis for the instant site wage disposition and the restriction on payment restriction disposition, decided that the relevant part is unconstitutional, and thus, the instant case is based on the invalidated law.