Law Firm Manuri, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 7/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and 3/10 thereof shall be borne by the defendant.

To the extent necessary to determine the legitimacy of the instant disposition, this case’s disposition’s details are examined as follows.

(a) Outline of the B business;

Based on Article 25 of the Framework Act on Employment Policy and Article 25 (1) 3 of the Employment Insurance Act, the Minister of Employment and Labor implements B projects that provide unemployed youth with experience of working as an intern in small and medium enterprises. The purpose of the projects is to provide unemployed youth with opportunities to develop their job ability and experience and to promote employment for regular employment suitable for their aptitude and experience.

Article 25(1)3 and Article 25(2) of the Employment and Labor Act; Article 35 Subparag. 2, Article 36(1)3, and Article 36(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28369, Dec. 12, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) provide that “B implementation guidelines that provide for matters necessary for the implementation of B projects each year pursuant to Article 36(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Act shall be publicly announced; however, the 2014, 2015, and 2016 B Implementation Guidelines related to the instant case (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant guidelines”) provide for the requirements for the employment of internships and the requirements for the payment of subsidies and grants for full-time conversion to youths:

Requirements for employment of internships

(1) A person who is employed by an implementing company as of the start date of the internship shall not be employed as an intern (hereafter referred to as "requirements for unemployed enterprise to start the internship" in this paragraph), and (3) an implementing company shall be able to directly select a youth intern through an approval of direct selection by the employment center having jurisdiction over the operating agency only when the person is unable to receive employment mediation for the intern who is employed by the operating agency on two or more occasions or when the person is employed by the operating agency on two or more occasions within two weeks from the date of application for employment mediation for the intern, (hereafter referred to as "requirements for unemployed enterprise to start the internship" in this order), and (hereinafter referred to as "requirements for direct selection of unemployed enterprise to start the internship" in this order).

The subject of the payment of the youth internship support fund, the regular conversion support fund, and the payment requirements;

A person shall be appointed.

B. Details of the instant disposition

1) Status of parties

The Plaintiff is a multimodal transport mediation company established on July 19, 2001, and C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) is an operating institution entrusted by the Defendant with the business affairs related to B based on Article 25(1)3 of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 35 Subparag. 2 and Article 36(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Act, etc. The Defendant is the head of an employment security office entrusted by the Minister of Employment and Labor with the authority to conduct B business pursuant to Article 115 of the Employment Labor Act and Articles 35 Subparag. 2 and 145(1)20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Labor Act.

(ii)the employment of internships, the employment of full-time workers, and the payment of subsidies for youth internships and subsidies for full-time conversion;

The plaintiff has employed D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K as an intern as shown in the "employment column of the attached Table" (hereinafter referred to as "the above eight internships in this case", and "the date of conversion" among "the details of the appointment and full-time conversion of the internships in this case" (hereinafter referred to as "the appointment of the internships in this case") and "the details of the employment and full-time conversion of the attached Form" among "the details of the employment of the internships in this case", "the date of conversion" means D, E, F, G, I, and J (hereinafter referred to as "D et 5,") from among the internships in this case as a full-time intern, and requested the defendant to receive the conversion subsidy from the defendant as shown in the "attached Form 5" among "the details of the payment of the youth employment subsidy" in accordance with the guidelines of this case, and received the conversion subsidy from the defendant as a full-time intern in this case.

3) On November 24, 2017, the instant disposition Defendant applied for subsidies to the Plaintiff as if the Plaintiff employed the instant internship in violation of the method prescribed by the instant guidelines, and subsequently employed the said internship in accordance with the method prescribed by the said guidelines, and received subsidies from C, respectively, for youth internship support and for full-time conversion support from the Defendant.

A) In relation to the youth internship subsidy, ① orders the Plaintiff to return KRW 10,625,80,00 for the youth internship subsidy paid by F, G, H, I, J, or K based on Article 3(1)1 of the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Subsidy Act”) (hereinafter referred to as “order to return the youth internship subsidy”), and ② orders the Plaintiff to additionally collect KRW 10,451,600, an additional collection of KRW 100,00,00 for the total sum of the youth internship subsidy paid by C related to K, based on Article 3(2) of the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as “order to additionally collect the youth internship subsidy”).3)

B) Regarding the full-time conversion subsidy

① Based on Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, the Plaintiff issued an order to return KRW 19,070,160, which the Plaintiff received from the Defendant in connection with D and five other persons (hereinafter referred to as “order to return the instant subsidy to full-time conversion”); 4)

② Based on Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act, the Plaintiff issued an order to additionally collect KRW 6,940,320, which is twice the sum of the full-time conversion subsidies received from the Defendant in relation to I and Jton (hereinafter referred to as “order to additionally collect the subsidies for full-time conversion”); 5) Order to return the principal of the instant youth internship, order to additionally collect the subsidies for full-time conversion; and hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition” in addition to the instant order to return the said subsidies for full-time conversion.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 21, Eul evidence 1 through 36 (including branch numbers if there are above numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not receive subsidies by fraud or other improper means, and even if so, there is no cause attributable to the Plaintiff in relation to the breach of duty, and there is no statute that provides the basis for the instant disposition.

(b) Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff violated the instant guidelines in the course of employing the internship (A.), and examine the legality of the instant disposition as follows: F, G, and H (hereinafter referred to as “F et al.”) among the order of return of the youth internship subsidy; part concerning I, J, and K (hereinafter referred to as “I, et al.”) among the order of return of the youth internship subsidy; part concerning I, J, and K (hereinafter referred to as “I, et al.”) among the order of return of the youth internship subsidy; additional collection order of the youth intern subsidy (D.); order of return of the regular conversion subsidy; order of additional collection of the full-time conversion subsidy; and order of additional collection of the converted subsidy (e

A. Whether the instant guidelines were violated

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 7, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20, although the plaintiff was unable to receive employment mediation for the internship two or more times within two weeks from the date on which he applied for employment mediation for the internship to Eul, or even if he was offered employment mediation for the internship two or more times by C, he/she is not subject to employment mediation for C, and the fact that he/she was directly selected the internship and employed for the internship without obtaining approval from the employment center for C under the jurisdiction of the C, can be recognized. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff violated "direct selection approval requirements" among the guidelines of this case at the time of employment for the internship.

In addition, according to the above 1.b. 2, among the instant internships, the remaining internships except E were already employed in the Plaintiff company prior to the date of application for the internship and the date of commencement of the U.S.’s business asserted by the Plaintiff. As such, in relation to the employment of the above remaining internships, the Plaintiff also violated the "unemployed applicant for the internship" among the instant guidelines and the "requirements for unemployed company for the start of the U.S. business."

Therefore, the Plaintiff would be deemed to have violated the instant guidelines at the time of the appointment of the internship (the Defendant violated the instant guidelines at the time of the employment of the Plaintiff and C, and the violation of the internship support agreement between the Plaintiff and C, and the violation of the internship support agreement at the time of the employment of the instant internship is deemed to have been in violation of the instant guidelines. However, as long as the Plaintiff is deemed to have violated the instant guidelines at the time of the employment of the instant intern, the said part of the Defendant’s assertion is not further determined).

B. Whether the disposition is lawful

1) The part concerning F and two others among the order to return the youth internship subsidy

The defendant ordered the return of the above part on the ground of Article 33 (1) 1 of the Subsidy Act, which provides that the head of central government agency, etc. may order the subsidy recipient to return all or part of the indirect subsidy if he/she received the indirect subsidy by fraud or other improper means.

Therefore, with respect to whether Article 33(1)1 of the Subsidy Act can be the basis for the above part of the order to return, as seen earlier, that the Plaintiff applied for a youth internship subsidy to C and received a youth internship subsidy from C as if the Plaintiff used F and two other employees as an intern in violation of the instant guidelines, as seen earlier. In light of the structure of the above B business and the procedures for granting youth internship subsidies, etc., the youth intern is an indirect subsidy under Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Subsidy Act, and C constitutes a subsidized business operator under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Subsidy Act, and the Plaintiff constitutes a subsidy recipient under Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Subsidy Act, and the Plaintiff constitutes a subsidy recipient under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Subsidy Act, and the Plaintiff is subject to a disposition under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Subsidy Act, which was enforced as at the time of the relevant violation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 20Nu13681, Dec. 13, 1983; 20Nu161364, supra.

The Defendant asserts that the Defendant may order the return of subsidies directly based on Article 33(1)1 of the Subsidy Act, since the Ministry of Employment and Labor amended and enforced April 29, 2016 in the B B’s implementation guidelines from April 29, 2016, which were amended and enforced by the Minister of Employment and Labor to the effect that the Defendant may order the person who unlawfully received subsidies before April 29, 2016 to return the subsidies. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant may order the return of subsidies directly for the F and two other persons pursuant to the above revised implementation guidelines. According to the evidence No. 24, according to the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s revised and enforced B’s implementation guidelines from April 29, 2016, Article 33(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, which was the subject of the Seoul High Court’s decision No. 2526, supra, Article 26(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, which was the subject of the Employment Insurance Act’s Directive No. 25.

Ultimately, the above part of the return order constitutes a disciplinary administrative disposition based on the law committed by the administrative agency only after the violation of this law.

2) The part concerning one of the order to return the instant youth internship subsidy and two others

A) Article 2 of the Subsidy Act defines the amount of money, etc. granted by the State to create or provide financial assistance to affairs or projects conducted by a person other than the State as a "subsidized subsidy", and defines a person who implements a subsidized project as a "subsidized subsidy", and defines a person who implements a subsidized project as an "indirect subsidy", while a person other than the State, as an "indirect subsidy," a "indirect subsidy," a "business or project subject to indirect subsidy," and a "indirect subsidy," a "indirect subsidy," and a "indirect subsidy," a "indirect subsidy," a "indirect subsidy," and a person who implements an indirect subsidy program."

Furthermore, pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Subsidy Act, the head of a central government agency may cancel all or part of the decision to grant subsidies where a subsidy program operator has received subsidies by false application or other unlawful means, and pursuant to Article 31(1) of the Subsidy Act, the head of a central government agency shall order the return of subsidies corresponding to the cancelled portion and interest accrued therefrom within a fixed period when the subsidy program has already been paid in relation to the canceled portion of the subsidy program.

In this context, “false application or other unlawful means” refers to active and passive acts that could affect the decision-making on grant of subsidies, such as deceptive schemes, even though the payment of subsidies under the law is not possible, through normal procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du50580, Jul. 11, 2017).

B) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff applied for a youth internship subsidy to C as if he/she had employed not only I but also two other I as an intern in violation of the instant guidelines. As such, the Plaintiff would have received a youth internship subsidy from C, which is an indirect subsidy, by fraud or other improper means prescribed in Article 30(1) of the Subsidy Act. In addition, in cases where the Plaintiff received an indirect subsidy even when he/she received the subsidy by fraud or other improper means, the head of central government agency, etc. may order the subsidy recipient to return all or part of the indirect subsidy (Article 33(1)1 of the Subsidy Act). Accordingly, the Defendant may order the Plaintiff to return the subsidy pursuant to Article 33(1)1 of the Subsidy Act (Article 33(1)1 of the Subsidy Act).

C) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff did not know the content of the instant guidelines, and that the Plaintiff did not have any reason attributable to the Plaintiff with respect to the violation of this part of the guidelines. However, the sanctions imposed on the violation of administrative regulations are imposed based on the objective fact that is, in order to achieve administrative purposes, a violation of administrative regulations, and thus, a sanction is imposed, barring special circumstances, such as there are no justifiable grounds that do not cause any negligence on the part of the offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1297, May 10, 2012), and there are justifiable grounds that do not cause any negligence on the part of the offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1297, May 10, 2012). In light of the fact that, prior to the Plaintiff’s application for the payment of the youth subsidy, the Plaintiff is liable to verify whether the employment of the youth was performed by himself in accordance with the instant guidelines.

3) The part of the order to additionally collect the instant youth internship subsidy

A) Based on Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act, whether the Defendant may order the Plaintiff to additionally collect youth internship subsidies from C, and Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides, “The Minister of Employment and Labor may order a person who has received or intends to receive support for employment security and vocational skills development programs under the provisions of this Chapter by fraud or other improper means, to restrict such support or to return the amount received by false or other unlawful means, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides, “The Minister of Employment and Labor may additionally order a return pursuant to paragraph (1) and additionally collect an amount not exceeding five times the amount received by the Plaintiff by fraud or other improper means.” According to the language and structure of the above provision, an order to additionally collect additional collection under Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act can only be issued to a person who has received or has received a return order under Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act.”

B) However, as seen earlier, the Defendant, rather than Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, ordered the return of youth internship subsidies on the grounds of Article 33(1)1 of the Subsidy Act (the Defendant clarified this point through a preparatory document dated June 28, 2018), and the Plaintiff does not constitute a person ordered to return subsidies pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be ordered to additionally collect youth internship subsidies from the Plaintiff on the grounds of Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act.

C) In light of the following, even if the Defendant’s amendment to Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act to the Act or the Employment Insurance Act’s provision of Article 35(1) is added to the applicable law, Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act cannot be deemed as the basis law for the order to return the instant youth internship subsidy.

① Administrative laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for an indivative administrative disposition, shall be strictly construed and applied, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the party against whom the administrative disposition is rendered, and in cases where a teleological interpretation is allowed taking into account the legislative intent, purpose, etc. of such administrative laws and regulations, such interpretation shall not deviate from the ordinary meaning of the language and text thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du51610, Nov

② Article 25(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that “The Minister of Employment and Labor may directly carry out, or subsidize or lend expenses incurred by, the following activities to promote employment security and employment of the insured, etc.” under Article 25(1)3 of the Employment Insurance Act; Article 35 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, which is delegated by Article 25(1)3 of the Employment Insurance Act, shall list "projects prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as job placement, job-seeking guidance, job-seeking support, job-seeking support, etc." under Article 25(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act in each subparagraph; and Article 35(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "employment support programs, such as job placement, job-seeking guidance, job-seeking support, and job-seeking support programs."

③ However, Article 36(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that “The Minister of Employment and Labor may subsidize expenses incurred in providing employment assistance to the following persons, within budgetary limits, pursuant to Article 25 of the Act and Article 35(2) of this Decree.” Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that “The Minister of Employment and Labor may order a person who received or intends to receive subsidies by fraud or other improper means to return subsidies and restrict subsidies.”

④ In light of the fact that Article 25(1) of the Employment Insurance Act limits the subjects of B support projects to the Minister of Employment and Labor, Article 36(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act limits the subjects of support for expenses incurred in the employment support projects to the Minister of Employment and Labor, and Article 35(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "an order to return subsidies" and "an order to restrict subsidies" as sanctions against a person who received or intends to receive subsidies by fraud or other improper means, it is natural to view that subsidies that can be returned pursuant to the above provision are limited to those that are paid by the recipient of support, and that subsidies that can be returned pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act shall be limited to those paid by the head of an employment security office who is delegated with the authority of the employment security office concerning B projects by the head of the employment security office. The amount paid by a person who is not the head of the employment security office shall not be deemed to fall under the scope of subsidies granted under Article 56(1)5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act.

(5) However, not the head of an employment security office such as the defendant, but the head of an employment security office such as C shall pay youth internship support to an implementing company as seen earlier.

D) Therefore, the order to additionally collect the instant youth internship subsidy cannot be a legitimate ground for the aforementioned additional collection order under Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act, which the Defendant is based on the Defendant’s disposition, and thus, is unlawful.

4) The part of the order to return the subsidy for full-time conversion and to additionally collect the subsidy for full-time conversion

A) Based on Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, the Defendant issued an order to return the instant subsidies for conversion to regular workers, and issued an order to additionally collect the instant subsidies for conversion to regular workers based on Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act.

B) Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides, “The Minister of Employment and Labor shall order a person who has received support for employment security and vocational skills development programs under this Chapter by fraud or other improper means to return the amount of support received by the person.” Article 56(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides, “The Minister of Employment and Labor shall order a person who has received or intends to receive the support by fraud or other improper means pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Act to return the amount of support received by the person.” Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides, “The Minister of Employment and Labor shall order the person to return the subsidy already received by fraud or other improper means.” Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides, “The Minister of Employment and Labor may order the person to return the amount not exceeding five times the amount received by the person who has received the support by fraud or other improper means.” Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act provides, “Any other wrongful means such as “the person who can receive a refund order and additional collection” generally refers to 200.

C) In full view of the contents and legal principles of the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, if an executor company has employed an intern employed in violation of the instant guidelines to be a full-time employee, but has employed an intern employed in accordance with the instant guidelines to be converted into a full-time employee and applied for the payment of the full-time conversion subsidy as if the employee met the requirements for the payment of the full-time employee conversion subsidy, the Defendant may order the executor company to return the full-time conversion subsidy already received pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 56(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, and collect an amount not exceeding five times the amount of the regular conversion subsidy received pursuant to Article 35(2) of the same Act (the full-time conversion subsidy paid by the head of the employment security office, unlike the youth conversion subsidy paid by the operating agency, constitutes a subsidy that can be issued pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 56(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act).

D) As to the instant case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff: (a) employed the Plaintiff as an intern in violation of the instant guidelines; (b) employed the Plaintiff as a full-time intern; and (c) applied for a full-time conversion subsidy of KRW 19,070,160 from the Defendant as if the said intern was employed in accordance with the method set out in the instant guidelines; and (d) received the Defendant’s payment of the full-time conversion subsidy of KRW 19,070,160 from the Defendant; and (b) in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant may order the Plaintiff to return the said full-time conversion subsidy pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act and to additionally collect the amount pursuant to

E) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff did not know the content of the instant guidelines, and that the Plaintiff did not have any reason attributable to the Plaintiff in relation to the violation of this part of the guidelines. However, as seen earlier, sanctions imposed on the violation of administrative regulations are imposed based on the objective fact of violation of administrative regulations in order to achieve administrative purposes, and thus, barring special circumstances, such as there is no justifiable reason for not infringing on the duty of the violator, it may be imposed even if there is no intentional or negligent act on the violator, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is a justifiable reason for not infringing on the duty of the violator at this time. In light of the above, the Plaintiff, who received regular conversion subsidies, was responsible for verifying whether the Plaintiff was employed as an intern on his own prior to the application for the payment of subsidies. In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be deemed to have any justifiable reason for failing to cause this part of the obligation, considering all the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

F) The order to return the instant regular subsidy and the order to additionally collect the instant regular converted subsidy is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Since the portion of KRW 5,400,00 among the order to return the instant youth internship support is based on the legal provision that was enforced only after the Defendant committed an offense that was the ground for the disposition, the order to additionally collect the amount of the instant youth internship support cannot be a legitimate ground for the aforementioned additional collection order under Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act, which is the ground for the Defendant’s disposition, and thus, each of the above dispositions is revoked upon acceptance of the Plaintiff’s claim and each of the above dispositions is revoked. The order to return the remainder of KRW 5,225,80 among the order to return the instant youth internship support fund and the order to additionally collect the amount of the instant regular converted support fund is lawful, and thus, the part seeking the revocation of the above dispositions among the Plaintiff’

The Guidelines year provides that a person employed by an implementing company as of the start date of the "the start of the internship" shall not be an intern.

2) 10,625,800 - 1,800,000 won 】 5 (F, G, H, I, I) + 1,625,800 won (K) ; the defendant shall have respect to the so-called referring internship support for D and E.

An order of return was not issued.

3) KRW 5,225,80 either to KRW 1,800 x 2 (I, J) + 1,625,800 (K) in relation to the order to return youth internship subsidies, and the Defendant is F, G, H, I, J, and K related to the order to return youth internship subsidies.

Among F, G, and H were excluded from those subject to the order of additional collection of youth internship subsidies.

4) KRW 19,070,160 = X 4 (D, E, F, G) + 1,520,160 (I) + 1,950,00 won (J).

5) 6,940,320 = [1,520,160 won (1) + 1,950,000 won] x 2. The defendant is not D in relation to the order to return the regular conversion subsidy, but not five others;

E, F, and G were excluded from the order of additional collection of regular conversion subsidy.

6) The Subsidy Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 13931 (hereinafter referred to as the “former Subsidy Act”) is a State’s subsidy in Articles 30 and 31.

The revocation of the decision to grant subsidies to a project operator and the grounds for the order to return such subsidies, and Article 33-2 of the Subsidy recipient

The basis for the order to return the subsidy was prepared, but the State can issue the order to return the subsidy recipient.

Article 30(1) and Article 31(1) of the former Subsidy Act at the time of the enforcement of the former Subsidy Act.

A direct subsidy recipient could not be ordered to return the subsidy on the basis of the subsection (Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu26 August 26, 2015).

63765, Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu17000 decided June 13, 2014, etc.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.