Revocation of Decision

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

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 4-1 through 11, Eul evidence 5:

A. From 190 to 1990, the Plaintiff is engaged in insurance and annual gold-related service business with the trade name of "C from the second floor of building B located in the following city."

B. On October 13, 2008, the Plaintiff initially employed D and applied for the payment of the new employment promotion subsidy to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a new employment promotion subsidy of KRW 4,800,000 in total from January 5, 2009 to October 1, 2009. The Defendant conducted an investigation related to the Plaintiff’s illegal receipt of the new employment promotion subsidy, and confirmed that the Plaintiff had already been employed on April 1, 2008, and received the new employment promotion subsidy from the Defendant by reporting the acquisition of the employment promotion subsidy by falsity as if the Plaintiff had already been employed on April 1, 2008.

D. Accordingly, on November 30, 2009, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to return the new employment promotion subsidy of KRW 4,800,000 and additionally collect additional collection of KRW 14,40,000, and refused to pay the new employment promotion subsidy of KRW 35 of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 1039, Jun. 4, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 56 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22026, Feb. 8, 2010); Article 78 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 3388, Feb. 9, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply); and the Defendant’s new employment promotion subsidy of KRW 4,000 from the date of application for the first employment promotion subsidy of KRW 10,000 and the Defendant’s new employment promotion subsidy of KRW 10,000 from the date of application by unlawful means.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Article 78 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 319 of April 1, 2009) (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor of April 1, 2009) is the total amount of KRW 4,80,000, which is the sum of the amounts that the Plaintiff is deemed to have received by false or other unlawful means pursuant to Article 78 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act prior to the amendment of April 1, 2009.

(2) In light of the overall circumstances, such as the fact that D actually received the employment promotion subsidy by unlawful means, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that D was paid the employment promotion subsidy by unlawful means, and the Plaintiff’s erroneous recognition of and reflects against the fact that the employment promotion subsidy was received by unlawful means, the instant disposition was in violation of the law of abuse of discretionary power by excessively harshly treating the Plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the scope of additional collection

Article 78(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 319, Apr. 1, 2009; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule prior to the amendment”) provides that a person who received support for employment security and vocational skills development projects by fraud or other improper means shall be additionally collected an amount equivalent to the amount recognized as having been paid by fraud or other improper means. However, Article 78(1)3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 338, Sept. 1, 2010; hereinafter “amended Enforcement Rule”) (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 338, Sept. 3, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”) provides that where the number of persons who received or were requested to receive subsidies by fraud or other improper means for the last five years prior to the detection of unlawful acts is additionally collected at least twice, Article 3 of the amended Enforcement Rule shall be calculated by calculating the number of times of subsidies received by fraud or other improper means.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff received a new employment promotion subsidy of KRW 2,400,00 through four times on January 5, 2009, January 19, 2009, and February 16, 2009, and March 30, 2009, by unlawful means. Thus, the amount of additional collection for this case is KRW 2,40,000, which is the amount recognized as being paid by false or other unlawful means under Article 78(1) of the former Enforcement Rule before the amendment, and thus, the amount of additional collection for this case is KRW 50,00,00, which is the amount recognized as being paid by the Plaintiff in a fraudulent or other unlawful manner. However, since the Plaintiff received a new employment promotion subsidy of KRW 2,40,00,00 from the 200,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case that the Plaintiff determined as KRW 14,400,000 (=2,400,000 + 12,00,000) the additional collection amount for the new employment promotion subsidy for KRW 4,80,000, which the Plaintiff received by unlawful means, is lawful.

(2) Determination on the assertion of deviation or abuse of discretionary power

In light of Article 35(2) of the former Employment Insurance Act and Article 78 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, an additional collection disposition against a person who received a subsidy, etc. by fraud or other improper means constitutes an act of discretionary discretion. However, the subsidy is a benefit specially paid to a business owner who takes measures necessary for employment security in order to prevent the structural deterioration of unemployment by facilitating employment of workers who are particularly difficult to find a job under the ordinary conditions of the labor market and facilitate entry into the labor market of new unemployed persons. Therefore, the necessity of eradicating the illegal act of the business owner who abused the subsidy system by improper means and protecting the public interest of employment insurance, and the need for sanctions is strongly required. Considering that the illegal receipt of a new employment promotion subsidy, etc. is a serious threat to the foundation and order of the employment insurance system, even if considering all the grounds asserted by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed unlawful since the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit (On the other hand, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff received a new employment promotion subsidy directly from the Defendant bank account.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-jin

Judges, Chief Judge

A person shall be appointed.