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

A. The Plaintiff, in the Jeonju-si B, operates a tourist art goods and retail store with the trade name “C”. On July 3, 2015, pursuant to Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 26(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff applied for subsidies for promotion of employment (hereinafter “instant application”) to the Defendant on August 20, 2015, on the ground that he/she employed D as “a person who is particularly difficult to find employment under the ordinary labor market conditions” under Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act.

B. On October 27, 2015, the Defendant returned 8.6 million won of the subsidy for promotion of employment already received pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 56(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act and additionally collected KRW 17.2 million pursuant to Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 78(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (i.e., “the subsidy for promotion of employment under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes shall not be paid to the spouse of the business owner, blood relatives within the fourth degree, or relatives within the fourth degree.” The Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff to pay the subsidy for additional collection (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was a disguised employment of D

The employer's confirmation document, which is one of the documents attached to the application for employment promotion support due to the absence or error of law, does not constitute a relative by marriage within the fourth degree of relationship between the plaintiff and D.