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

A. On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff was certified as a social enterprise by the Minister of Employment and Labor (certification number: business contents B and 8: the manufacturing business of electric and electronic sterilizations, the wholesale and retail of products from living miscellaneous products, and the realization type of e-social purposes: the job offer type).

B. On May 24, 2016, in the case of violation of the Subsidy Management Act (Act No. 8801, May 24, 2016), the Plaintiff’s representative director C applied for a false subsidy of KRW 6,283,00,00 for the Plaintiff on the ground that “D was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million on June 4, 2016,” on the ground that the said summary order became final and conclusive (hereinafter referred to as “instant violation”) on the ground that the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s disposition based on the Plaintiff’s Social Enterprise Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as “social Enterprise”) on the following grounds: (a) even if the Plaintiff did not actually work in the Plaintiff’s company for seven months from March 10, 2014 to April 30, 2015 for the total period of seven months from November 10, 2014 to April 30, 2015.

D. On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, but was dismissed on December 13, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 9 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The representative director C of the Plaintiff listens to the circumstances that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to make a living due to the illness of the children from D who worked for the past two years, and that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to make a living due to the Plaintiff’s mental illness, etc.; D to have D purchase a certain amount of subsidy in the E-school’s field of industry-academic cooperation training, which is the Plaintiff’s educational institution for disabled persons, and let the Plaintiff work in the field of the exhibition of the products, for that period; and at the time of the police investigation, criminal facts were acknowledged in the manner of prompt completion of the case; and eventually, the instant disposition was taken in this case by the Plaintiff’s good faith to help D who is a vulnerable class in accordance with the purpose of the social enterprise; the period of receiving the subsidy was relatively short of seven months; the amount was returned according to the measures to recover the subsidy; the Plaintiff returned the subsidy; the Plaintiff’s non-payment of the subsidy; and the Plaintiff’s small-scale social enterprise certification institution can purchase a certain amount of subsidy from the public enterprise, etc. to maintain the Plaintiff’s discretionary authority.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In the case of a discretionary rule on the administration of internal affairs of an administrative agency, there is no legal effect that externally binds citizens or courts, i.e., the validity of an administrative disposition based on such a discretionary rule, and thus, the legality of an administrative disposition based on such a discretionary rule is not determined depending on whether the disposition conforms to the provisions of the discretionary rule, but on whether the disposition is in accordance with the provisions of the relevant law, and there is no illegality of deviation from or abuse of discretion, such as violating the principle of proportionality under the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20236, Mar.

2) According to the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments on this case, i.e., social enterprise promotion, according to Articles 7, 8, 14, and 18 of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act, a person who intends to operate a social enterprise may obtain certification from the Minister of Employment and Labor, and may receive financial support, such as personnel expenses and operating expenses. However, if a social enterprise receives financial support by fraud or other improper means, such certification shall be revoked. The disposition of this case is in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. ii) Even if it is not bound by the facts established in the criminal trial, it is hard to find the Plaintiff guilty of the same criminal judgment based on the same facts, even if it is not an administrative litigation, and thus, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a violation of the former summary order for the purpose of providing a new social enterprise to meet the requirements of the public interest, and thus, it is difficult to consider that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a violation of the summary order based on the evidence submitted in the administrative trial.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be illegal because it deviates from or abused discretion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.