(전주)부당이득금환수처분취소
(B)Revocation of revocation of revocation of unjust enrichment 2019Nu1802
A Stock Company
The head of the following mountainous districts of the Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office
Jeonju District Court Decision 2018Guhap2466 Decided July 18, 2019
March 25, 2020
April 29, 2020
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition to recover 3,600,000 won of the extension subsidy for employment of the elderly citizens against the plaintiff on June 19, 2018 shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to Chapter 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, the reasoning for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the
2. The further determination of this Court
As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition violates the legislative purpose of the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion, and the institutional intent of the extension subsidy for employment of the aged (the instant subsidy).
However, as seen earlier, the instant subsidy is provided separately under Article 25-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act to ensure that an employee who has reached the retirement age by continuously employing an employee at a place of business that set the retirement age above a certain age without obtaining a retirement age, or providing financial support to an employee who re-employed within a short period after retirement age so that he/she can continue to maintain employment relations even after the retirement age. However, regardless of whether the retirement age is applicable, it seems not to have been simply intended to ensure that an employee who reaches the age below the retirement age can continue to maintain employment relations. 60 years or older with the intent to provide support for maintaining employment relations regardless of whether the aged is a worker to whom the retirement age applies, or a fixed-term employee,
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
The presiding judge, the Gimsung
Judges Lee Young-young
Judge Senior Superintendent General