A. Of the refund disposition of 22,400,000 won, the subsidy for job creation projects 5.

A. While the Plaintiff was operating a manufacturer, such as automobile parts, etc., with the trade name in Busan-gun B, Busan-gun, on January 30, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted an application for employment creation support project with the content of rebuilding of a dormitory, etc. to the Defendant on February 14, 2012, and reported that the employment environment improvement was completed on April 16, 2012, and then filed an application for subsidies for employment creation on July 25, 2012 (i.e., construction cost of KRW 40 million x 1/2 x 1.2 million x 1.2 million x 1.2 million)

B. On December 3, 2013, the Busan Geum-gu Police Station requested the Defendant to submit data related to subsidies to the Plaintiff on the ground that the representative director E of the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D Co., Ltd.”) who performed the construction of a dormitory, which is a support facility for the Plaintiff’s employment creation, was illegally received and detained. On January 6, 2014, the Plaintiff conspired with the above E, etc., and received the Defendant a false notification of the subsidy of KRW 22.4 million.

C. Accordingly, on January 28, 2014, the Defendant issued an order to refund KRW 22,400,000 for subsidies for job creation projects that were illegally received to the Plaintiff on the grounds that subsidies were illegally received on January 28, 2014 after prior notice and the submission of opinions on January 17, 2014 (hereinafter “instant return disposition”), and issued an order to pay KRW 44,80,000 for additional collection twice the amount of illegal receipt (hereinafter “instant additional collection disposition”); and ③ a disposition to restrict subsidies for one year from January 28, 2014 to January 27, 2015 (hereinafter “instant restriction disposition”).

argument and Judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is merely a new dormitory upon entering into a contract with D Company for a contract with the amount of KRW 40 million, and thereafter a return of KRW 10 million, knowing that the construction cost saved by D Company would have been returned. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is false.