2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. While operating the Daegubuk-gu B apartment C (hereinafter referred to as “child care center of this case”) on March 3, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for new promotion of employment for the period from July 14, 2010 to June 2, 2010; KRW 1,800,000 for the period from March 3, 2010 to June 2, 201; ② the period from October 18, 2010 to June 3, 201; KRW 1,80,000,000 for the period from June 3, 201 to September 2, 2010; ③ the Defendant did not receive the Plaintiff’s new promotion of employment for the period from October 3, 201 to 30,000 for the period from September 2, 201 to KRW 30,000 for each of the instant workers’ new promotion of employment. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 223210, Sep. 3, 2010, 2010

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows: non-contentious facts; Gap's evidence Nos. 1, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 8, and 10; the plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

A. The Plaintiff transferred all of the instant childcare center’s facilities and the employment relationship to the Plaintiff. Workers H resigned on February 28, 201, and workers F and G were employed and paid wages until March 3, 201, and only transferred the employment relationship to I. The instant disposition was unlawful, since the Plaintiff did not dismiss the instant workers.

B. Even if the grounds for the instant disposition exist, it was abused the discretionary authority to order the return of all subsidies paid on the ground that the period of one day was violated, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

C. The Defendant did not undergo prior notification procedures and hearing of opinions under the Administrative Procedures Act while rendering the instant disposition that restricts the Plaintiff’s rights and interests. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2. A

(1) According to Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, the Minister of Employment and Labor may order a person who has received or intends to receive support for employment security and vocational skills development projects by fraud or other improper means to restrict such support or to return the amount of support received by fraud or other improper means, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

According to Article 26 (2) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23513, Jan. 13, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act"), the subsidies for promotion of employment shall not be granted where a business owner leaves the employment of his/her employees (excluding workers employed later than those eligible for the subsidies for promotion of employment) through employment adjustment during the period from three months before he/she employs a person eligible for the subsidies for promotion of employment to 12 months after employment. According to Article 56 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, the Minister of Employment and Labor shall not grant the unpaid or intended subsidies under Article 26 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act to a person who has received or intends to receive the subsidies by fraud or other improper means, and shall order the return of the subsidies already received by fraud

(2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the statements in the evidence Nos. 2 through 9 of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff transferred the instant child-care center facilities, operation rights, and authorization rights to I on March 1, 201, but the employment relationship of the instant workers was not transferred to I, and that the employment relationship was terminated on February 28, 201, which is before the expiration of the period for preventing the said reduction, and that the employment relationship was terminated on February 28, 201, and that the evidence Nos. 2-1 and 5-2 of the evidence Nos. 2-1 and 5-2 of the evidence Nos. 2, witness G, and H’s testimony alone is insufficient to reverse it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’

(A) On February 17, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (Evidence A No. 4) with the Plaintiff on February 17, 2011, the Plaintiff lost the right to operate the instant childcare center from March 1, 201, on the day of the said sales contract, because the Plaintiff’s facilities, the right to operate the childcare center (18 current number and 18 current number) and the right to authorization, and did not specifically agree on the succession to the employment relationship, and the remainder date was February 28, 2011. The Plaintiff agreed to have the right to operate the facilities, the right to operate the facilities, and the right to authorization, from March 1, 2011.

(B) On March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff retired on February 28, 2011 by the instant workers.

A report on the loss of employment insurance and industrial accident insurance on the above report was filed. The reason for loss of employment insurance and industrial accident insurance is "retirement due to other corporate circumstances (including voluntary retirement by a business owner's recommendation under the employment adjustment plan)," and the specific reason is "no succession to employment is made due to the change of the representative of the child care center in this case" (Article 4). The plaintiff submitted a certificate of severance from employment to the defendant on March 25, 201, F, G, and E on March 3, 201 (Evidence 5); according to the date of appointment and dismissal of the child care staff submitted by the plaintiff to the head of Daegu North Korea (Evidence 5), the dismissal date of F, G, H, and E is February 28, 2011 (Evidence 7) (Evidence 7).

(C) On March 25, 2011, G filed an application for unemployment benefits with the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was dismissed on February 28, 2011 due to the fact that the employment succession was not made due to the change of its representative (Evidence B6). H worked for another childcare center from March 2, 2011 to another childcare center.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2.B.

According to Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, the Minister of Employment and Labor may order a person who has received, or intends to receive, support for employment security and vocational skills development projects by fraud or other improper means to restrict such support or to return the amount of subsidy received by false or other unlawful means, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 56(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the Minister of Labor shall order the person who has received, or has received, the subsidy already received by fraud or other improper means to return the subsidy." Thus, the instant disposition constitutes a binding act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the instant disposition is a discretionary act is without merit. Determination on the Plaintiff's assertion on the

(1) According to Articles 21(1) and (4) and 22(1) through (4) of the Administrative Procedures Act, where an administrative agency imposes duties on the parties or imposes restrictions on their rights and interests, it shall notify the parties concerned of the facts and legal grounds for the disposition in advance, the purport that they may submit their opinions, and the method of disposal when they fail to submit their opinions. If other Acts and subordinate statutes provide that the hearing shall be held or public hearing shall be held, the parties concerned shall be given an opportunity to submit their opinions. In other cases where an urgent disposition is required for the public safety and welfare, or where there are reasonable grounds for deeming that hearing is considerably difficult or clearly unnecessary due to the nature of the disposition in question, the administrative agency shall not give prior notice or hearing of opinions. Thus, in rendering infringing administrative dispositions, unless the parties have given such prior notice or given no opportunity to present their opinions, the administrative agency shall not be exempt from the revocation of the disposition, unless the prior notice is given or the opportunity to present opinions is exceptional (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du154, May 28.).

(2) The Defendant asserts that Defendant’s public official explained the requirements for the payment of the new employment promotion subsidy to the Plaintiff, and that he gave the Plaintiff an opportunity to give prior notice and present opinions on the grounds that he received a written confirmation from the Plaintiff that he would be sufficiently aware of the occurrence of employment adjustment for the workers at the relevant workplace for three months prior to the employment of the person eligible for the subsidy and for twelve months subsequent to

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the Plaintiff’s instruction on December 14, 2009 and on July 12, 2010, prior to the Plaintiff’s employment as to the requirement for the payment of the new employment promotion subsidy and the recovery of the new employment promotion subsidy on the ground of the new employment promotion subsidy of E, prior to the Plaintiff’s employment of E, was issued by the Defendant, and the Defendant was informed of the requirements for the payment of the new employment promotion subsidy and the recovery thereof, and submitted a confirmation document to the Defendant. However, the prior notice and the opportunity for submitting opinions under Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act are acknowledged to be the fact that the administrative agency takes any disposition, and the notification and the opportunity for submitting opinions are given to the parties. Thus, the Defendant’s instruction on the requirements for the payment of the new employment promotion subsidy and the general contents of the redemption before the instant disposition occurred cannot be deemed to have given the opportunity for submitting opinions and opinions under Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s submission of this case is not justified.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Kim Yong-nam

Judges

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.