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

A. On August 20, 2009, the Plaintiff mainly engaged in the manufacturing industry, etc., and newly employed workers B who were unemployed through the job security arrangement agency, and applied for a new employment promotion subsidy for May 30, 2009 to the Defendant on September 30, 2009, and was paid KRW 1,440,000 (hereinafter “instant incentive”) from the Defendant, and again applied for a new employment promotion subsidy for August 19, 2009 to the Defendant on November 19, 2009.

B. On January 25, 2010, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff was not a worker employed through the referral of an employment security office; (b) Article 35 of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 1039, Jun. 4, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22026, Feb. 8, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (d) Article 78 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 338, Feb. 9, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply); (d) on the ground that the Plaintiff was not a worker employed through the referral of an employment security office; (e) the Defendant filed a request for the cancellation of the above disposition of KRW 1,440,000; and (e) the Plaintiff received a series of the disposition of KRW 2000,700.1.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 10 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff employed B through an interview through the referral of the employment security office, and only provided B with convenience to make a request through the computer in the office of the plaintiff. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff was paid the grant of this case by fraud or other improper means is unlawful.

(b) Statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

According to Article 23 of the former Employment Insurance Act and Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, a new employment promotion subsidy shall be paid to a business owner who newly employs a person in a state of unemployment through an arrangement by an employment security office, etc. under the ordinary conditions of the employment market. The new employment promotion subsidy is paid to a business owner who takes a low amount of money needed for his employment stability in order to prevent the structural deterioration of unemployment by promoting employment of workers who are particularly difficult to find employment under the ordinary conditions of the employment market and to facilitate the suppression of the labor market of a new business owner, and it is to prevent the job seeker and the job offerer from abusing the above system for the purpose of receiving only the subsidy.

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 5 through 7, 9, Eul's evidence Nos. 4, 6 through 11 (including each number), and Eul's testimony, Eul's address (Ga) is Young-si C apartment D, and the plaintiff's office's bilateral distance is 3.6 km and 13 minutes per Do newsletter. Eul visited the plaintiff's office on May 15, 2009 and consulted on work with the person in charge of personnel, and the other plaintiff's office was registered in the Internet website (www, 2:2:57) (hereinafter referred to as "No. 257") (the time is 10:257) and the fact that the plaintiff's office was registered in accordance with the plaintiff's office No. 2519, Feb. 15, 2005).

In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., 10:22 minutes and B, which are 10:31 minutes from the time of the Plaintiff’s job offer registration, to the Defendant’s office, it is difficult to view that B had visited the Plaintiff’s work net job offer registration even if the time of moving the Plaintiff’s office to the Plaintiff’s office from the actual address to the 13 minutes from the web site search result, which is the shortest requirement time, was 13 minutes. Furthermore, in light of the fact that B immediately visited B, which the Plaintiff found in the office, and B actively cooperatedd in the process of arranging the Plaintiff’s job employment promotion request at the Plaintiff office, it appears that B could have been employed for the Plaintiff without good offices, and the Plaintiff’s act of receiving the new job promotion subsidy after receiving the new subsidy from the Defendant’s employment promotion agency, is deemed to have obtained the new subsidy after the employment promotion recommendation, and thus, it seems that the Plaintiff could have received the new subsidy after the employment promotion recommendation.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Yellow Senior Superintendent

Judges Min Jong-nam

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.