지급제한처분 등 취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation with the objective of maintaining and managing its business facilities.
The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the payment of KRW 2,250,000 (hereinafter “instant subsidy”) corresponding to the period from April 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 on the ground that he/she employed B, who is eligible for employment promotion, as eligible for employment promotion, as of April 1, 2016, and received the said subsidy from the Defendant.
B. Since then, the Defendant, on March 23, 2017, issued a disposition on the Plaintiff to grant subsidies for three months, order to return the illegally received subsidies, 2,250,000 won, additional collection of KRW 4,50,000, based on Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, and Article 78 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, on the ground that B had had the Plaintiff work for B during the period in which the Plaintiff participated in the employment support program but had employed B and applied for subsidies as if the Plaintiff met the requirements for support after completing the program.
(hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant disposition was lawful on the grounds of the disposition and the relevant statutes, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition was unlawful on the following grounds.
1) Since the Plaintiff was actually employed B on April 1, 2016, which was after the completion of the employment assistance program, the Plaintiff did not falsely apply for the instant subsidy. Even if the Plaintiff was employed B during the period in which the Plaintiff participated in the employment assistance program, the amount of the subsidy for employment promotion was applied for from the period after the completion of the said program, and thus, did not receive the instant subsidy in a false or unlawful manner. 2) The Plaintiff’s high-quality job for the socially disadvantaged class.