2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,380,000 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from April 18, 2018.

A. The Defendant is a business owner who has carried on cargo transport and brokerage business under the trade name of “C” in the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

B. On July 30, 2014, the Defendant: (a) registered with the Employment Security Office; (b) completed the employment support program; (c) employed D workers eligible for employment promotion subsidies under Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 26 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27738, Dec. 30, 2016); and (d) applied for employment promotion subsidies to the Plaintiff for a period of KRW 3.4 million from three months before the employment of the eligible recipient of employment promotion subsidies until 12 months after employment (hereinafter “the period for employment promotion”).

The defendant received 1.7 million won each as the employment promotion subsidy from the Jeonju District Office on November 25, 2014 and February 16, 2015.

C. D retired from the Defendant’s workplace on February 28, 2015, stating that D’s reason for the loss of insurance qualification is “a resignation due to the necessity of management and the reduction of the number of employees due to the depression of the company.”

On July 25, 2015, the president of the Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office rendered a decision to recover unjust enrichment to the Defendant on July 25, 2015, stating that “the head of the Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office shall recover 3,400,000 won of the subsidy for employment promotion already paid due to the reduction of the number of employees due to the necessity of management,”

E. The head of the Jeonju District Office urged the Defendant to return the subsidies for promotion of employment several times from August 10, 2015 to January 31, 2017. However, the Defendant returned only KRW 1020,000, which is a part of the subsidies received, and did not return the remaining KRW 2380,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Progress of the instant lawsuit