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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Defendant is a person who has operated a business in the name of the business entity in Silung City B.

B. On April 27, 2012, the Defendant submitted an employment environment improvement plan with the content of improvement of dormitory extension to the Ansan Labor Office, and obtained approval on May 29, 2012.

After completing the dormitory extension work on June 15, 2012, the Defendant applied for employment improvement subsidies to the Ansan Labor Office. On October 29, 2012, the Plaintiff paid 22,400,000 won (hereinafter “instant subsidies”).

C. Meanwhile, Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act and the Minister of Employment and Labor’s “Guidelines for Implementation of Employment Creation Support Projects in 2012” are “instant Guidelines.”

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Defendant’s assertion is deemed to have been led to a confession under Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act (based on recognition) since the first instance court’s procedure was conducted by means of public notice on the Defendant, and the Defendant did not appear at the date of pleading or any other preparatory document, even if the Defendant was delivered a legitimate date notice on the date of pleading and was not present at the date of pleading of this court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da104079, Oct. 31, 2013).

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant violated the elements for preventing reduction in the guidelines of this case, and thus, the defendant should return the employment improvement subsidy received from the plaintiff to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. The subject matter of confession, which is a party’s unfavorable statement against the principal facts, is limited to the facts to be constituted, and the legal judgment or assessment of these facts is not the subject matter of confession.