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

A. On April 1, 2010, the Plaintiff Company was a small and medium enterprise that is engaged in the manufacture and sale of clean consumer goods such as fire proof clothes, and submitted a report on the plan to improve the employment of small and medium enterprises by stating that the details of the improvement of the employment environment of small and medium enterprises such as dormitory, shower room and toilet, physical fitness room, book room, education room (hereinafter “the improvement project in this case”), cost check amount as KRW 90,494,00, and at least one employee expected to be employed after the improvement of the employment environment.

B. Accordingly, on June 24, 2010, the Defendant required construction cost of KRW 74,208,00 for the instant improvement project and approved the plan to improve the employment environment of the Plaintiff Company by using the amount of support of KRW 37,104,00 among them.

C. On August 14, 2010, the Plaintiff Company completed the instant improvement project by bringing an amount equivalent to KRW 74,208,000, and submitted a report on the completion of the employment environment improvement to the Defendant on the 16th of the same month.

D. On December 5, 2010, the Plaintiff Company applied for the payment of employment improvement subsidies for the amount of KRW 39,504,000,000 related to the instant improvement project + KRW 2,400,000 for increased workers’ wage support (per person 1,200,000 for each person). E. On January 4, 2011, the month in which the date the employment improvement was completed for the Plaintiff Company and the monthly average number of workers for the following two months was 24.33 (on August 24, 2010, September 24, 200, October 25, 201), compared to the monthly average number of workers for the month immediately preceding 3 months in which the date the employment improvement plan was submitted, the Defendant did not make a decision to increase the amount of employment improvement subsidies on the ground that the monthly average number of workers for the month in which the date the employment improvement plan was submitted is 24.6 (on March 25, 2010).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, and 3-1, 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff company's assertion

(1) If a plan to improve the employment environment was submitted on a specified date during a month other than the end of the month, a specific date that submitted the plan to improve the employment environment should be the base date in calculating the monthly average workers of March immediately preceding the month to which the date on which the plan to improve the employment environment was submitted belongs. Since the Plaintiff Company submitted the plan to improve the employment environment on April 14, 2010, the base date for calculating the monthly average workers of March immediately preceding year shall be January 14, 2010; February 14; March 14 of the same year; and March 14 of the same year; the number of workers of the Plaintiff Company excluding B representative director and in-house directors on February 13; the number of workers of the Plaintiff Company excluding B representative director and in-house directors on February 14; the number of workers of the Plaintiff Company excluding the monthly average workers of March 14 and 24 months (from March 13 to March 14; 26.26th of the same year and February 26th of the same year shall be included.

(2) On September 1, 2010 due to health problems, D temporarily retired from the Plaintiff Company and had been in good faith until October 1, 2010, the Defendant is excluded from calculating the average number of workers for October 10 on the ground that D was re-employed at the same workplace. Since it is difficult for the Plaintiff Company to seek Korean workers on the ground that it was inevitable to employ two foreign workers as a so-called 3D type of business, it is inevitable to employ foreign workers, so the above workers are included in the monthly average number of workers, even though they are included in the above workers, it is excluded from calculating the monthly average number of workers for the month in which the date when the employment improvement is completed and the next two months. In light of the purport of the employment improvement subsidy system, the Defendant’s instant disposition is an unlawful disposition that deviates from and abused discretionary power.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 3-1 and 2 of evidence Nos. 1 and 3-2, among the workers of the Plaintiff Company, the average monthly workers of the Plaintiff Company as of January 31, 2010 excluding the registered directors ( January 1, 31), shall be 24, 2010. ( February 1, 201 or February 28) shall be 25, 2010. ( March 24, 2010 to March 31, 2010) shall be 25, 24, 24, 24, and 28 (including two foreign workers) from October 10, 201 to October 1, 2010; and D shall be calculated on Oct. 1, 2010 to include Plaintiff Company’s employees on Oct. 21, 2010, excluding Plaintiff Company’s retirement.

10. 8. and 20. The term of the labor contract was fixed and employment for one foreigner, and the defendant may recognize the facts other than them, when calculating the monthly average number of workers on October 2010 on the ground that the term of the labor contract was fixed.

D. Determination

(1) The assertion that the average monthly number of workers should be calculated on the basis of the date on which the plan to improve employment environment is submitted.

Article 7 (2) of the Regulations on the Payment of Subsidies for the Improvement of Employment Environment for Small and Medium Enterprises (Notice of the Ministry of Labor No. 2009-93, Dec. 23, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Notice of this case") claims that the monthly average number of workers in the month to which the date of completing the employment environment improvement belongs and the next two months should exceed the monthly average number of workers in the immediately preceding three months of the month to which the date of submitting the employment environment improvement plan belongs. Article 8 (2) of the Notice of this case provides that the monthly average number of workers shall be the basis of the average number of workers as of the end of each month subject to calculation, and as seen earlier, Article 8 (2) of the Notice of this case provides that the date of submitting the employment environment improvement plan to the defendant on April 1, 2010, even if the plaintiff company asserted by the plaintiff company, the period subject to the calculation of the monthly average number of workers in the case of the plaintiff company shall be from 31 October 14, 20101.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) Grounds for deviation and abuse of discretionary power

Article 20 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the Minister of Employment and Labor may provide necessary support as prescribed by Presidential Decree to employers who expand employment opportunities through the improvement of the employment environment of small and medium enterprises. Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Dec. 31, 2010) provides that small and medium business owners may install facilities or equipment necessary to improve the employment environment in order to increase employment opportunities, and provide some of the expenses and wages to employers who increase employment opportunities within budget if they increase employment opportunities. The issue of whether to provide employment improvement subsidies is left at the discretion of administrative agencies.

Article 8(1)2 and 6 of the Notice of this case provides that a person with a fixed term of employment contract or a person employed by a business owner at the time of the final severance from employment shall be excluded from the number of workers subject to determination of the requirements for the payment of the employment environment improvement subsidy. As seen above, as the defendant was employed by the plaintiff company at the time of September 1, 2010, the last date of employment was the employment of the plaintiff company, the defendant excluded from D on October 1, 2010, and 2 foreign workers with a fixed term of employment contract were excluded from calculating the monthly average number of workers. In light of the purpose of the employment improvement subsidy to improve the employment environment and promote employment by paying subsidies to the business owner who has expanded employment environment, the business owner shall guarantee a stable workplace by hiring workers for a long time, and to prevent the receipt of the employment improvement subsidy by manipulating the number of workers by unlawful means, it is difficult to deem that the defendant's calculation of the monthly average number of foreign workers from D and foreign workers is justifiable and unlawful.

Conclusion

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

Judges Lee Jin-young

Judges Yellow-gu

A person shall be appointed.