(2) In a case where Company A participated in the youth employment internship project as an executor company, hired 26 internships, received “youths support”, and maintained employment for at least seven months and received “regular conversion support” by maintaining 11 out of them to regular workers, and ordered the return of “youths support” and “regular conversion support” pursuant to Articles 30 and 31 of the Subsidy Management Act on the ground that the head of the local employment and labor office received the paid wage of the internships, the case holding that the “youths support” and “regular conversion support” are separate subsidies, and even if part of the internships were converted to regular workers, it cannot be deemed that the “regular conversion support” can not be deemed as a case where the “regular conversion support” was received by false or other unjust means.

1. Article 2 of the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Subsidy Act”) defines the amount of money, etc. granted by the State to create or provide financial assistance to affairs or projects conducted by persons other than the State as “subsidies”; the affairs or projects eligible for subsidies as “subsidized project operators”; and defines the person who operates a subsidized project as “indirect project operators”; and defines the amount of benefits, etc. granted by a person other than the State, as “indirect subsidies,” the affairs or projects eligible for indirect subsidies, as “indirect subsidies,” and defines the affairs or projects eligible for indirect subsidies as “indirect subsidies,” and the person who implements an indirect subsidy program as “indirect subsidy business operators.”

Furthermore, according to Article 30(1) of the Subsidy Act, the head of a central government agency may cancel all or part of the decision to grant subsidies where a subsidy program operator has received subsidies by false application or other unlawful means. According to Article 31(1) of the Subsidy Act, where the decision to grant subsidies has been revoked, the head of a central government agency shall order the return of the subsidy corresponding to the revoked portion and the interest accrued therefrom within a specified period, if the subsidy has already been paid with respect to the subsidy program in the revoked portion.

In this context, “false application or other unlawful means” refers to active and passive acts that could affect the decision-making on the grant of subsidies, such as deceptive schemes, even though it is not possible to receive subsidies under the law in light of normal procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do573, Mar. 25, 2005, etc.).

2. Review of the facts acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.

A. Based on Article 25 of the Framework Act on Employment Policy and Article 25(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, the Ministry of Employment and Labor implements a “youth employment internship system” project that provides unemployed youth with experience in working as an intern in a small and medium enterprise. The purpose is to provide opportunities for developing job abilities and career experience, and to promote employment for regular workers that are suitable for aptitude and experience.

B. The Ministry of Employment and Labor’s guidelines for the implementation of the youth employment internship system (hereinafter “instant guidelines”) established and publicly announced by the Ministry of Employment and Labor to determine the matters necessary for the implementation of the said business (hereinafter “the instant guidelines”), provides that (a) where an implementing company employs a internship in accordance with the method prescribed by the instant guidelines, 50% of the paid-in internship wage shall be paid to the implementing company as the “ youth employment internship subsidy” during the internship period; and (b) where an employed intern has maintained employment for at least seven months after converting the employed intern into a regular position, the “regular conversion subsidy”

C. (1) If the implementing company submits an application for the monthly subsidy to the operating body and again submits the application for each company to the employment center under its jurisdiction, the employment center shall decide to grant the subsidy to the operating body and shall pay the operating body to the bank account of the implementing company accordingly.

(2) On the other hand, when an implementing company submits an application for subsidy to the competent employment center, the “regular conversion subsidy” shall be paid in the way that the employment center determines whether to pay the subsidy after confirming the employment maintenance status and immediately deposits it into the bank account of the implementing company.

D. A professional bank company (hereinafter “professional bank”) is an institution selected by the Ministry of Employment and Labor as an operating institution of youth employment internship business.

Since 209, the Plaintiff participated in the youth employment internship business as an executor company and employed the internship. As if 26 internships were to have paid a larger amount of money than actual wage, the Plaintiff received the “ youth internship subsidy” from the Defendant on the ground that 11 of the internships was converted to regular employees and maintained employment for at least seven months from the date of conversion.

E. On September 25, 2013, the Defendant issued an order to return KRW 142,574,010 (the part of the order to return the full-time conversion subsidy) to the Plaintiff, based on Articles 30 and 31 of the Subsidy Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff was paid the “full-time internship subsidy” on the ground that the Plaintiff was paid the “full-time internship subsidy,” and that the Plaintiff was paid the “full-time internship subsidy” as above, and issued an order to return KRW 142,574,010 (the part of the order to return the full-time conversion subsidy) to the Plaintiff, and issued a disposition to prohibit the new employment of the full-time internship according to the youth employment internship project for the next two years.

3. Examining these facts in light of the relevant statutes and legal principles as seen earlier, the following is determined.

A. The term “regular conversion subsidy” is money granted by the State to provide financial assistance in the regular conversion business conducted by the Plaintiff, and constitutes “subsidies” under the Subsidy Act.

B. The requirements for the payment of the Youth Internship subsidy are as follows: “The internship was employed in accordance with the method prescribed by the instant guidelines; and the professional bank, which is not the Defendant, shall pay the Plaintiff the “Juvenile Internship subsidy.”

On the other hand, the requirements for the payment of the “regular conversion subsidy” are to convert the internship employed in accordance with the method set forth in the instant guidelines to regular workers and maintain employment for seven months. The Defendant confirmed the status of the maintenance of employment of regular workers and then paid the “regular conversion subsidy” to the Plaintiff.

C. As can be seen, the term “ youth internship subsidy” and “regular conversion subsidy” are separate subsidies, and their payment requirements and methods are different under the subsidy-related Acts and subordinate statutes and the instant guidelines, so it is difficult to view that the legitimate receipt of youth internship subsidy is a natural premise for the payment of full-time conversion subsidy.

D. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff received excessive amount of the paid-in internship’s wage, and then converted part of the paid-in internship’s wage into regular employees without disclosing such fact, if the Plaintiff maintained employment for 7 months after the full-time conversion, thereby satisfying the requirements for the payment of the “regular conversion subsidy” as prescribed by the instant guidelines, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff merely received a reasonable amount of subsidy for the business eligible to receive the subsidies, with respect to the “regular conversion subsidy,” and it does not constitute “cases where the subsidies were received by false application or other unjust means.”

4. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Act was not applicable to the return of the “regular conversion subsidy” in this case solely on the ground that the Defendant directly performs the business, and determined that the lawful receipt of the “permanent conversion subsidy” was a prerequisite for the payment of the “regular conversion subsidy,” and held that the instant disposition was lawful by deeming that the Defendant could ex officio cancel the decision and order the return of the subsidy on the premise that the Defendant was defective in paying the “regular conversion subsidy.” Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the return of subsidies and subsidies as prescribed by the Subsidy Act, and the requirements for the payment of the “regular conversion subsidy” as prescribed by the instant guidelines, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on

5. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the part against the plaintiff among the judgment below, and remand this part of the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)