2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. As a representative of C Office located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant office”), the Plaintiff newly employed B on May 16, 201, and applied for employment promotion subsidy to the Defendant on September 30, 2016 and December 19, 2016.

B. Accordingly, on October 7, 2016, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 4,50,000,000, in total, KRW 2,250,000,00 for subsidies for promotion of employment (a desired employment) and KRW 2,250,000,00 for subsidies for promotion of employment (a desired employment) on January 9, 2017.

C. On the other hand, the Ministry of Employment and Labor, on March 23, 2017, ordered the Defendant to effectively respond to the case of unjust receipt of the employment promotion subsidy referred to in the press report at that time, to investigate whether the employment promotion subsidy was received through on-site inspections and the current status of the employment promotion subsidy.

Accordingly, from April 2017, the Defendant conducted an investigation into whether the employment promotion subsidy was illegally received from the Plaintiff and B. On September 8, 2017, the Defendant returned the employment promotion subsidy of KRW 4,500,000 paid to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 78 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that “the employee (B) subject to support provided labor before May 16, 2016, and confirmed that he/she was not the unemployed at the time of employment” to the Plaintiff on the ground that he/she was not the unemployed at the time of employment. The Defendant issued a disposition to additionally collect KRW 9,00,000 equivalent to twice the paid amount

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists with the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 5-15, Eul evidence 1-7, Eul evidence 17-7, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff 1 entered into an employment contract with B on May 16, 2016, and employed Plaintiff 1 as a worker B, and only performed practical training and education for B from April 11, 2016 to May 15, 2016.

Therefore, the plaintiff had already been in B before May 16, 2016.