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

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose purpose is research and development of food and beverage and service business using life sciences.

B. On June 22, 2009, the Plaintiff advertised for job offer to “B,” which is a daily information center for police officers. On June 22, 2009, around 23, 2009, the Plaintiff interviewd 4 employees including C, etc., who reported the above job offer advertisement. At that time, C notified the representative director of the Plaintiff company that he would be eligible to receive the new employment promotion subsidy, and the Plaintiff would be eligible to receive the subsidy. The Plaintiff notified of employment to C. The Plaintiff, and C worked around June 25, 2009. D. On June 25, 2009, upon the request of the Plaintiff company, C registered the job offer under the name of the Plaintiff company in the above net (Work-Net, employment support information network) using the Plaintiff company’s computer. On June 29, 2009, C applied for the mediation under the Plaintiff company’s own name.

E. C was registered as an employee of the Plaintiff Company on July 1, 2009.

F. As to the employment of C, the Plaintiff received 6,480,000 won in total from the Defendant for new employment promotion incentives twice as shown in the following table (hereinafter “instant incentive”).

A person shall be appointed.

G. Meanwhile, according to the letter of confirmation prepared and submitted by the plaintiff and C to the defendant around January 20, 2010, as to the matters in the worker confirmation column which are written in the same text as "employee identification route (the detailed statement such as paper letter, good offices in the Ministry of Labor, and daily job offer information)", the "n't have any corresponding content" as to those written in the same text as "n't the same letter as "n't the mediation of the Ministry of Labor" among them, and under the bottom of the business owner confirmation column, the "n't have any corresponding content".

H. After that, on January 13, 2011, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that: (b) the Plaintiff had already employed C prior to the referral date of the Employment Center; (c) had requested the Employment Security Office to formally apply for job offer and arrange for the supply of and demand for the instant incentives; and (d) had received the instant incentives by hiding it and receiving the instant incentives; (b) pursuant to Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant issued a disposition of restricting the payment of various subsidies for employment security programs (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 17 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff's representative's personal examination result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In order to promote employment of those who are difficult to find a job under normal conditions, the new employment promotion subsidy system intends to induce employment by providing them with incentives to employ those who are difficult to find a job. Thus, the Plaintiff’s employment following the employment process of the above recognition and received the instant incentive cannot be deemed as illegal receipt under Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, the instant disposition based on the different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

In light of the above, the job offerer's employment arrangement through the employment support center is hard to obtain a certification by signing the employment information, etc. of the job offerer as a member, job seekers have signed a resume, etc., and then obtain a certification by signing a job seeker's membership, and then the job seeker's job seeker's "request for placement" communicates with the relevant job offerer, the original center's employee confirms the job seeker's intention to contact the relevant job offerer with the job offerer and confirm the job seeker's progress of mediation, and if the job offerer wants to arrange, the new employment promotion subsidy system under the Employment Insurance Act is conducted through the adjustment of employment conditions of both parties, and the date of interview. The new employment promotion subsidy system under the Employment Insurance Act is difficult for the elderly, disabled, long-term job seeker, women, etc. to verify the employment promotion system under the ordinary conditions of the labor market, and it is difficult for the plaintiff's employment promotion center to find the job offerer's new employment promotion system to be prepared and provided to the defendant through the employment promotion agency's employment promotion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-hoon

Judge Sok-hee

A person shall be appointed.