과징금부과처분취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is operating a Acertified Tax Accountants Office in Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant office”). Under Article 23 (1) 1 of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 13041, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter the same) on the ground that he/she employed B who is particularly difficult to be employed under the ordinary terms and conditions of the labor market, the Plaintiff received the first employment promotion subsidy from the Defendant on April 15, 2014 by applying for employment promotion subsidy from October 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 pursuant to Article 26 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25955, Dec. 31, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply).
B. On November 3, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the second employment promotion subsidy to the Defendant for the period from April 1, 2014 to September 30, 2014.
C. However, as a result of examining whether the Plaintiff received subsidies for promotion of employment against the Plaintiff, the Defendant reported the first degree of affinity B (the Plaintiff’s children) included in those who were excluded from subsidies for promotion of employment as those eligible for subsidies and confirmed that the Defendant received subsidies for promotion of employment.
Accordingly, on January 20, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to return KRW 3,400,000 for the first employment promotion subsidy, an order to additionally collect KRW 6,800,000 equivalent to twice the second subsidy for the first employment promotion, and a disposition to refuse the application for the second employment promotion subsidy (hereinafter “instant return order,” “instant additional collection disposition,” “instant refusal disposition,” and “instant refusal disposition,” respectively.
E. On April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission against the instant return order, the instant additional collection disposition, and the instant refusal disposition, but was dismissed on July 8, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 37, and Gap evidence 38, respectively.