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

The key issue of the instant case is whether receiving a new employment promotion subsidy from the Defendant for the Plaintiff’s employment of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4 constitutes “a case where the Plaintiff received support for employment security activities by fraud or other improper means” as stipulated in Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act.

The first instance court acknowledged that the Plaintiff had Nonparty 1, etc. apply for job seeking to the "Worknet", which is an employment promotion information network for receiving new employment promotion incentives, and that Nonparty 1, etc. applied for new employment promotion incentives to the Defendant, and that Nonparty 1, etc. were employed as a referral by the employment support center while applying for new employment promotion incentives to the Defendant. The Employment Insurance Act's new employment promotion incentive system was introduced to promote employment promotion of the employment vulnerable group by supporting the incentives to the business owner who employs the aged, disabled, long-term job seekers, women, etc. who have difficulties in employment under the ordinary conditions of the labor market, and then submitted a confirmation that Nonparty 1, etc. was employed as a referral by the employment support center. However, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff's new employment promotion incentive system was lawful on the premise that it was intended to help the employment of the vulnerable group in employment and promote the operation of the employment security center, and that it did not constitute an unlawful collection of the amount of new employment promotion subsidy or other unlawful interview provided for in Article 5 of the Employment Insurance Act.

In light of the allegations and reasons that the plaintiff supplemented by this court, the employment mediation through the employment support center was conducted when the job offerer prepared the employment information, etc. of the company and certified as a member of the Worknet (Worknet-Net, Employment Support Information Network), the job seeker prepared a resume, etc. and signed the Worknet member and certified as a job seeker. If the job seeker talks with a "job contact", the job seeker confirmed the job seeker's intention to contact the relevant job offerer with the relevant job offerer by informing him of the job seeker's personal history, and confirmed the job seeker's personal history, and if the job offerer wants to act as a job offerer, it would result in the process of coordinating the employment conditions of both parties, the date of interview, etc. If the job offerer wants to act as a job offerer, the new employment promotion promotion subsidy system was under the ordinary conditions of the labor market, and the employment promotion subsidy system was prepared to promote the employment of the vulnerable class, and it is difficult for the job offerer and the employment promotion support center of the plaintiff to find the job seeker as a job offerer and the job offerer.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Donsung (Presiding Judge) Notarial decoration