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

A. The Plaintiff reported to the Defendant a plan for employment maintenance measures with the purport that it will suspend business due to a decrease in sales from March 18, 2009 to June 30, 201 (excluding the period from February 18, 2010 to February 201, 201, and from February 30, 2011, the period from February 201 to April 201). The main contents of the plan are as follows.

Standard for payment of wages for the period of suspension of business: 100% of ordinary wages

The number of insured workers: Four persons (three persons from December 2009).

Number of persons subject to suspension of business: Three persons (B, C, D).

The fixed working days of those subject to suspension: Six days per week except Sundays and legal holidays.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 15,943,490, in total, 23 times from the Defendant during the period from July 3, 2009 to August 12, 201, in total, from the Defendant based on the said report and a series of subsequent reports, to the period from March 3, 2009 to June 12, 201.

C. On September 22, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for the employment maintenance support payment for the Defendant on July 2, 2011, and the Defendant commenced an investigation as to whether the Plaintiff’s employees paid 100% of ordinary wages as a shutdown allowance to three workers under his/her control as a result of business difficulties.

D. Accordingly, on January 25, 2012, the Defendant: (a) discovered the Plaintiff’s improper receipt of employment support payment; (b) received the subsidy from the Plaintiff on the ground that “from March 2009 to July 2011 (excluding the period from February 2010 to February 3, 2011, and from February 201 to April 201) and received the subsidy; (c) however, the Defendant received the subsidy by adding up the following measures: (a) omitted cash sales; (d) omitted the number of days of the insured status of a long-term daily worker; (i) false report on the number of days of contractual work; and (ii) falsely prepared and submitted the employee’s signature and submitted the employment support payment support payment support payment; and (d) returned the Plaintiff’s order for additional collection of KRW 31,886, 980; and (d) returned the subsidy to the Plaintiff during the pertinent period from February 21, 2012 to April 13, 2012.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul in the evidence of paragraphs (1) through (3), 8, 17 through 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act

Of the instant disposition grounds, the omission of the details of cash sales and ① the reason for non-acquisition of the insured status of a long-term daily worker is in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act to regard each of the above disposition grounds as the main reason for the instant disposition, even though they were never mentioned in the prior notice procedure on the instant disposition.

(2) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

① Although the part of operating funds insufficient to E, the representative director of the Plaintiff, was deposited in the passbook under the name of the Plaintiff in order to cover personal money, the Defendant considered this as cash sales, and even if it is cash sales, it does not reach the extent that it exceeds the requirements for employment maintenance support.

The plaintiff did not know that he/she should purchase the employment insurance if he/she employs a worker for a certain period of time.

The defendant was judged to be less than 15 days per month the fixed working days of the plaintiff, and 3 full-time workers of the plaintiff worked for 6 days per week according to the number of working days.

ê 원고는 휴업 실시 전월 말일 경에 근로자 참석 하에 회의를 실시하였는데, 다만 해당 근로자들이 직접 서명의 중요성을 알지 못하고 위 서명을 위해 장거리의 출퇴근을 감수하여야 하는 불편함 때문에 전화통화로 동의를 표하고 근로자 중 1인에게 위임하여 서명하게 한 사실이 있어 이에 대하여 서명이 허위작성되었다고 볼 수 없다.

(3) Violation of the principle of clarity.

Since there is an obvious disagreement between the period during which the employment maintenance support payment was made and the amount of the employment maintenance support payment (including the calculation of additional collection amount) that was made in the instant disposition, it cannot be viewed as a simple clerical error, the instant disposition is contrary to the principle of clarity.

(4) Violation of the principle of proportionality

The Plaintiff’s additional collection of double the amount of subsidies for maintaining employment is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the assertion of violation of the Administrative Procedures Act

The purpose of the Administrative Procedures Act is to exclude the arbitrary decision of the administrative agency and to allow the parties to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure. Thus, even if the grounds that are not stated in the prior notice are added to the subsequent notice after a comprehensive consideration of the contents of the prior notice, the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the whole process up to the relevant disposition, if it is deemed that there is no particular obstacle in the party's objection to the administrative remedy procedure, it cannot be said that the disposition is unlawful solely on the fact that there is no part of the grounds for the disposition in the prior notice.

On December 21, 201, the Defendant sent a prior notice on the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on December 21, 201, and there is no dispute between the parties to the instant disposition, but the fact that the Defendant did not state the omission of cash sales details and the reason for failure to acquire the qualification for insured status of the worker employed for long-term employment. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts of recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff’s appeal is filed with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on March 2, 2012 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any problem as to the above disposition (i.e., the grounds for disposition ①, the part concerning the above disposition ②, the part concerning the disposition, and the dispute in the administrative remedy procedure, and (ii) it appears that the Plaintiff did not have any particular obstacle to the dispute in the administrative remedy procedure. In particular, when the Defendant’s person in charge of the instant appeal submitted by the Plaintiff (the time prior to the issuance of the prior notice of this case) did not state the Plaintiff’s grounds for refusal of the above disposition.

(2) Judgment on the non-existence of grounds for disposition

갑 제1호증, 을 제8, 14, 16, 17, 19 내지 23호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 이 사건 처분사유 ①과 관련하여, 고용보험법(2010. 6. 4. 법률 제10339호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제21조 제1항, 같은 법 시행령(2010. 2. 8. 대통령령 제22026호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제19조 제1항 및 같은 법 시행규칙(2010. 7. 12. 고용노동부령 제1호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제24조 제3호에 의하면, 기준달의 매출액이 기준달이 속하는 연도 직전 연도의 같은 달의 매출액, 기준달 직전 3개월의 월평균 매출액 또는 기준달이 속하는 연도 직전 연도의 월평균 매출액 중 어느 하나에 비하여 10% 이상 감소한 사업의 사업주는 고용유지조치를 실시하여 고용을 유지하는 경우 지원금을 지원받을 수 있는데, 원고가 2009. 2. 의 매출액을 7,451,260원으로 신고하여 직전 달인 2009. 1.의 매출액 8,550,050원 보다 10% 이상 감소한 것으로 신고하여 2009. 3.부터 2009. 9.까지의 지원금을 지급받았던 점, 그런데 피고 측의 원고 직원으로 휴업대상자인 B에 대한 조사를 할 당시설, 추석 등 명절 즈음에는 원고가 생산하는 김을 현금으로 매도한 물량이 상당하다는 취지로 B이 진술하고 있는 점, 원고의 대표 역시 현금으로 거래한 물량이 없는 것은 아니라는 취지로 피고 측 조사에 응한 점 등에 의하면, ② 이 사건 처분사유 과 관련하여, 행정법규 위반에 대하여 가하는 제재조치는 행정목적의 달성을 위하여 행정법규 위반이라는 객관적 사실에 착안하여 가하는 제재이므로 위반자의 의무 해태를 탓할 수 없는 정당한 사유가 있는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 위반자에게 고의나 과실이 없다고 하더라도 부과될 수 있어(대법원 2003. 9. 2. 선고 20025177 판결 등 참조), 일정기간 이상 일용직 근로자를 사용할 경우 고용보험에 가입하여야 한다는 것을 원고가 알지 못하였더라도 처분사유가 될 수 있는 점 등에 의하면, ③ 이 사건 처분사유과 관련하여, 피고 측의 부정수급 조사 당시 원고 직원으로 휴업대상자인 B이 한 진술에 의하면, 원고는 2005. 12.경 재가동되었는데, 2008.경부터 근무일수를 줄여 근무하고 있었고, 자신은 근무일에 출근하였으나 D과 C은 출근을 하지 않았고, 특히 C은 기계에 이상이 있을 때에만 근무하였다고 진술하고 있는 점, 원고의 대표이사인 E 역시 2011. 11. 9.경 "원고의 소정근무일수는 한 보름이 좀 되지 않습니다"라고 대답하였고, 이에 피고 측 담당자가 소정근로일수란 근로자와 사용자 간에 정한 근로일수라고 재차 설명을 하면서 "지원금은 원칙적으로 소정근로일 중 휴업한 날의 휴업수당에 대해서 지원해야 하는 금액인데, 원고는 지원금 신청 전부터 월 15일 미만으로 사업을 영위하던 사업장으로 소정근로일수에 휴업을 실시한 것이 아닌가요."라고 질문한 것에 대해 E이 "초창기는 기억이 잘 안 나고, 일이 없다보니 격일제로 출근하기로 약속을 하였는데 그나마도 일이 없어 3일을 출근하지 못하는 날이 많았다"라고 진술하였던 점, 이와 달리 원고의 직원들이 주 6일을 근무하였다는 것을 인정할 증거가 없어 보이는 점 등에 의하면, ④ 이 사건 처분사유 과 관련하여, 피고 측의 부정 수급 조사 당시 원고의 직원인 C은 근로자대표 선임을 위한 위임에 서명을 한 적이 없다고 진술한 점, 원고의 직원인 B이 "C, D의 동의 없이 임의로 근로자대표 선임을 위한 위임란 C, D 명의의 서명을 하였다"라고 진술한 점 등에 의하면, 이 사건 처분사유 ① 내지은 모두 존재한다고 봄이 상당하므로, 원고의 위 주장 역시 이유 없다.

(3) Judgment on the violation of the principle of clarity

Unlike the actual period during which the Plaintiff received subsidies for retaining employees under paragraph (4) of the Disposition No. 4 of this case, the fact that the Plaintiff stated "a refund order for KRW 15,943,490" from November 2009 to June 201 does not conflict between the parties. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of entry and pleading in the above facts and evidence No. 25, namely, ① the portion for which the Plaintiff received subsidies for retaining employees first from the Defendant in the course of investigation into the Disposition No. 2009, Mar. 3, 2009, ② the portion for which the Plaintiff received subsidies for retaining employees first on March 3, 2009 does not dispute with the part for which the subsidies for retaining employees were first granted on March 3, 2009, ③ the details of the decision of attaching the Disposition No. 3, the notification of the Disposition No. 943, and the part for which the Plaintiff received subsidies for retaining employees from March 20, 2009 cannot be viewed as a violation of the Plaintiff's legal reasoning.

(4) Determination on the assertion of violation of the principle of proportionality

Article 56 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the return of subsidies or incentives already paid by fraud or other improper means pursuant to Article 35 (1) of the Employment Insurance Act shall be ordered. Article 56 (2) of the same Act provides that no subsidies, incentives, or vocational skills development training expenses shall be paid for one year from the date when the subsidies, incentives, or vocational skills development training expenses are paid or applied. The Minister of Labor orders the refund of subsidies, incentives, or vocational skills development training expenses paid during the period of restriction on payment. Article 78 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act provides that Article 35 (1) of the same Act provides that a person shall additionally collect twice the amount received by the Minister of Labor by fraud or other improper means if there is no number of times a person receives an order for restriction on payment or refund from the Minister of Labor pursuant to Article 35 (1) of the Act for the last five years prior to the date of fraudulent acts. Accordingly, it is difficult to deem that the part additionally collecting twice the amount received by the Plaintiff under each of the instant disposition violates the principle of proportion.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Song Jong-hwan

Judges Kim Gung-Un

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.