Revocation of Disposition

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On April 5, 2010, the Plaintiff Company was a small and medium enterprise that manufactures PP.BAG, packaging sites, etc., and applied for an employment improvement subsidy on the grounds that the Defendant installed a dormitory, in-house education room, in-house training room, in-house training room, in-house training room, in-house training room, and in-house training room in order to improve the employment environment. On May 4, 2010, the Defendant paid KRW 46,474,000 to the Plaintiff Company.

B. On July 25, 201, the Defendant rendered a decision to recover KRW 46,474,000 of the above employment environment improvement subsidy on the ground that “the Plaintiff Company adjusted employment of its employees A as a recommendation agent due to the reduction of volume on September 30, 201, within the reduction period (from January 5, 2010 to October 4, 2010)” to the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On October 21, 201, the Plaintiff Company appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff Company’s claim on May 15, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 14, and 22, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A voluntarily retired for the purpose of personal business, and as a result, A received unemployment benefits by requesting the representative director of the Plaintiff Company to the post-management B for the purpose of receiving unemployment benefits, the disposition of this case based on the premise that A was the recommended resignation of the Plaintiff Company, is unlawful.

2) The defendant's assertion

In light of the fact that sales in the second half of the Plaintiff Company decreased by 44.7% in the first half of the first half of the first half, and that A appears to have been recommended for the reduction of sales revenue, and that A applied for unemployment benefits and stated the reason for retirement as "a recommendation office due to the reduction of quantity", and later, he stated that A was subject to recommendation in telephone conversations with the public official in charge, and that the reasons why A was treated as being subject to recommendation, and that the account prepared in the last half of the Plaintiff Company's representative director was received later increased wages, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff was subject to recommendation. Accordingly, the instant disposition is legitimate.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of Gap's testimony as a whole, Gap's 6 through 11, 13 through 16, 18 through 21, Eul's 2 through 12, 15 through 20, and Gap's testimony as a whole.

1) On September 1, 2009, A joined the Plaintiff Company and retired on September 30, 201, but retired on March 1, 2011, and then retired on July 31, 201 of the same year. A’s monthly salary was KRW 1.8 million.

2) On October 7, 2010, the Plaintiff Company reported to the Defendant that A was disqualified from being insured by retirement, and the Plaintiff Company’s accounting B stated that “A was dismissed due to a large number of days” in a telephone conversation with a public official in charge of the Defendant’s management on October 14, 2010. On October 25, 2010, A submitted to the Defendant an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits, stating “a recommendation agency due to the reduction of quantity” as the grounds for the specific reduction of employment, and the Defendant paid KRW 2,937,980 to A from November 1, 201 to January 29, 201.

3) The Plaintiff Company employed C from October 8, 201 to November 20, 2010, and paid KRW 1.2 million monthly salary. From October 23, 2010 to February 15, 201, the Plaintiff Company employed D and paid KRW 1.8 million monthly salary.

4) On March 24, 2011, A made a statement to the effect that “A was subject to recommendation as a result of a decrease in the daily volume” while communicating with a public official belonging to the Defendant, and the representative director E of the Plaintiff Company also made a statement to the same effect as the public official belonging to the Defendant around that time.

5) On the other hand, on August 29, 201, A made a statement at the Busan Local Employment and Labor Center of Busan, stating that "A retired from her home with the aim of engaging in the business as a member of the business, and that "B was asked to receive unemployment benefits from B upon the absence of such business," and the F also made a statement to the same purport as the public official belonging to the defendant, and B was withdrawn from her home on September 15, 201 at the Busan Local Employment and Labor Center of Busan, Busan, and that "A was withdrawn from her home on the ground of personal business, and after the withdrawal, A requested the company to find out the reason for departure and the reason for departure as a recommendation office without reporting it to the representative director of the Plaintiff company."

6) The sales status of the Plaintiff Company in 2009 and 2010 are as shown in the separate sheet of sales.

D. Determination

The key issue of this case is whether the reason for resignation of A is a resignation of a person or another resignation by the plaintiff company's recommendation. Thus, the following circumstances revealed by the facts of the above recognition and evidence mentioned above, i.e., the plaintiff company employed C on October 8, 2010 and employed D on the ground of the decline in quantity, if the plaintiff company made recommendation to A on the ground of the decrease in quantity, it would be unnecessary to employ the employee as above. ii) Considering the same circumstances as that of D's wages employed after A's resignation as 1.2 million won, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff company retired from office for the purpose of wage reduction, and it is hard to conclude that D's wages employed for the purpose of increasing the amount of wages reduction in the plaintiff company's total sales in the plaintiff company's 2010 and that the amount of wages increase in the plaintiff company's total sales in the plaintiff company's 200 years to A's employment reduction in the amount of wages increase in the plaintiff company's 200 years to A's employment reduction in the amount.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Kim Gin-ju

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.