고령자고용연장지원금 부정수급에 따른 회수결정 및 지급제한처분취소 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
On April 17, 2013, the Plaintiff, who runs a taxi transport business, etc., was paid KRW 117,300,000 in total of the subsidies for extension of employment of the aged from May 8, 2013 to August 1, 2014 (hereinafter “instant subsidies”) by submitting relevant documents, including the rules of employment, to the Defendant, that the retirement age prescribed by the rules of employment was extended from January 1, 2010 to 60 years of age from January 1, 2010.
Although the Plaintiff extended the retirement age from 55 to 60 on November 21, 2012, the Defendant confirmed that the employment rules, etc. were falsely prepared and submitted to the Defendant on January 1, 2010. On January 19, 2015, the Defendant returned total of KRW 117,300,000 to the Plaintiff for the extension of employment of the elderly, and additionally collected KRW 234,60,000, which is two times the above amount (hereinafter “additional collection disposition in this case”), and imposed a disposition that restricts the payment of various subsidies and grants for employment security activities for 12 months from the date of the disposition.
[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s disposition of additional collection in this case is unlawful for the following reasons, and the Plaintiff’s disposition of additional collection in this case is unlawful: (a) non-contentious facts; (b) written evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of branch numbers); and (c) the purport
The Defendant’s actor who committed a violation of the subsidies of this case is the Plaintiff’s managing director. The Plaintiff used false or other unlawful means prescribed under the Employment Insurance Act or did not have such intent. The Employment Insurance Act does not have joint penal provisions for the same employer as the Plaintiff on the violation, and thus, there is no legal basis for the instant additional collection disposition.
Even if the Plaintiff is liable for breach of duty, the Plaintiff is deemed to have concluded a consulting contract with respect to the application agency for extension of employment of the aged.