청년인턴지원금반환처분 취소 등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance as to this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing it as is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420
[Additional Decision] The plaintiff asserts that even if the interpretation of the guidelines of this case is based on the interpretation of the guidelines of this case as long as the regular conversion subsidy in the trial is a separate system different from the requirements and procedures for the youth internship subsidy, it is unlawful to determine the defects in the payment of the regular internship subsidy unfairly in the payment procedure of the regular internship subsidy, and that the recovery of the regular conversion subsidy even on the ground of the defects in the payment of the youth internship subsidy constitutes abuse of discretionary power against the principle of proportionality and thus, the order of return of the regular conversion subsidy of this case should be revoked.
Where there is a defect in an administrative act, a disposition agency which has conducted an administrative act may cancel it by itself, even without any separate legal basis: Provided, That when the disposition agency cancels a beneficial administrative disposition, it may cancel it only where the need for public interest is strong enough to justify the disadvantage that a party needs to suffer, such as the necessity of public interest and the infringement of the right to obtain benefits and the protection of trust and the stability of legal life, etc.
However, if the defect of the beneficial administrative disposition is attributable to the party's act of application by deceit or other fraudulent means, the party could have known that the benefit from the disposition was illegally acquired, and thus, the party could not invoke the trust interest in the disposition, as well as even if the administrative agency did not consider it, it does not abuse its discretion, and in this case, the party's act of application by deceit or other fraudulent methods through the third party.