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

A. On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff participated in the employment consultation project conducted at the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency affiliated with the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency (hereinafter “instant project”) in 2015, and completed the employment promotion program from June 29, 2015 to July 2, 2015. On July 16, 2015, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 250,000 (hereinafter “instant participation allowance”) with the Defendant’s one-stage participation allowance on July 17, 2015.

B. Of the Defendant’s business manuals of this case, the content of the participatory allowance is as follows. According to this, the participatory allowance is paid on the premise that the aforementioned participatory allowance was not a pre-employment by establishing the International AP. The Plaintiff acquired the qualification of employment insurance by being employed in the B’s workplace as of July 3, 2015, prior to the establishment of the said IP.

4.1.'s payment of participation allowances means expenses to be paid in terms of food and transportation expense support to participants who faithfully participate in the first phase of the package 1, who completed the first phase 1, and the person (payment requirements) who completed the first phase 1 from among participants in the package 4.2, who completed the first phase 1 from among participants who failed to meet the cost of living support in consideration of the economic characteristics, etc. of the participant (on the basis of part of actual cost compensation), who completed the first phase 4.2, who completed the first phase 1 from among the participants who failed to meet the cost of living support in consideration of the economic characteristics, etc. of the participant (on the basis of payment), refers to the person who faithfully participated in the first phase 1, and who completed the first phase 1, and thereby, if employment support is terminated or suspended due to employment, etc. without establishing the IAEA even if the participant at the first phase 1,

C. On August 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) confirmed that the Plaintiff had been employed prior to the first-stage employment ( July 16, 2015) in relation to the Plaintiff’s participation in the project for the promotion of employment failure; and (b) notified the Plaintiff that “the notice of recovery of participation allowances is the first-stage employment ( July 3, 2015) to recover KRW 250,000,000,000 already paid within the due date, and the notice of recovery of participation allowances (hereinafter “the notice of recovery”) was served on the Plaintiff on September 16, 2015 in the name of the expenditure officer of the two Mountainous District Administration.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant did not explain to the Plaintiff that he would have been employed prior to the establishment of the IAP, and the purpose of the instant project is to recover the participation allowances from the Plaintiff who completed the entire employment desire program solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was employed prior to the establishment of the IAP.

3. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "disposition, etc." means the exercise or refusal of public authority as an enforcement of law with respect to specific facts by an administrative agency, and other similar administrative actions and rulings on administrative appeals. Whether certain acts by an administrative agency can be subject to appeal litigation cannot be determined abstractly and generally. In specific cases, an administrative disposition is a law enforcement with respect to specific facts by an administrative agency as a public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. In mind, the administrative disposition is an act that directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. The administrative disposition must be determined individually by taking into account the content and purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form, and procedure of the act, the substantial relation between the act and the disadvantage suffered by interested parties such as the other party, and the attitude of the administrative agency and interested parties related to the pertinent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du23617, 23624, Mar. 10, 2011).

B. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the health team, the facts acknowledged earlier, and the evidence revealed earlier, the Plaintiff’s participation in the instant project, and the Defendant’s demand for the return of the instant participation allowance, which is either a party to the agreement, and the Defendant merely performed or sought the performance of the agreed terms and conditions on an equal footing with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s superior status does not constitute an act of public law that directly and unilaterally affects the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations, and thus cannot be seen as a disposition subject to appeal litigation.

① Although the Plaintiff did not comply with the collection notice of this case, the Defendant cannot collect the corresponding amount in accordance with the practices of disposition on default, and no other public law sanctions may be imposed pursuant to statutes (in the same purport, the same shall apply to the amount within the payment period and the amount after the payment period).

② The Defendant unilaterally set the instant business manual and, even if the Plaintiff, while participating in the instant business, shall be entitled to participating allowances in accordance with the manual and return it in the event it falls under the site wage requirement, such a contract method may always be found in pure private persons’ contract, and it is difficult to view it as an inherent symbol of dispositiveity. The Plaintiff’s payment of participating allowances is not made through any decision.

③ The instant participation allowance is an allowance paid by the Defendant to induce the Defendant to participate in the instant project in good faith, and the Defendant’s obligation to pay the said allowance to the project participants in the instant project is not based on any statute or statute, and there is no evidence to deem that the instant notice given by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was based on the instant business manual, and that there was no legal basis for the instant notice of recovery to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, we decide to dismiss the lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.

Judges Shee-jin

Judges fixed-term