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

A. On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) operated a tourist art store and retail store in the name of “C” in Jeonju-si B; (b) applied for subsidies for promotion of employment to the Defendant on July 3, 2015 pursuant to Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 26(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the ground that he/she employed D equivalent to “a person whose employment is particularly difficult under the ordinary conditions of the labor market” under Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act; and (c) received subsidies for promotion of employment from the Defendant on August 20, 2015.

B. The Defendant, on October 27, 2015, provides that the subsidies for promotion of employment shall not be granted to the Plaintiff’s spouse, blood relatives within the fourth degree, or relatives within the fourth degree of relationship. However, on the ground that the Plaintiff received subsidies for promotion of employment by unlawful means, such as stating that the subject D constitutes a relative by marriage within the fourth degree of the Plaintiff’s wife at the time of the instant application, even if the subject D falls under a relative by marriage within the fourth degree of relationship in the Plaintiff’s wife, the Plaintiff received subsidies for promotion of employment by unlawful means, such as stating that the relevant business owner’

In accordance with Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 78(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, an additional collection amounting to KRW 17.2 million (i.e., KRW 8., KRW 8.6 million for subsidies for promotion of employment already received x 2 times) was notified (hereinafter referred to as “payment notice for additional collection”) to return 8.6 million for subsidies for promotion of employment already received (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff did not falsely prepare wage ledgers, employment contracts, and work attendance books, and there are only substantial facts that the Plaintiff and D did not constitute a relative by marriage within the fourth degree of the Plaintiff and D, one of the documents attached to the application for subsidies for promotion of employment due to lack of law or mistake. The Plaintiff and D constitute a relative by marriage within the fourth degree of the Plaintiff should investigate ex officio by the Defendant, but the Defendant paid the subsidies for promotion of employment to the Plaintiff without confirmation. Ultimately, the Plaintiff does not constitute “a person who received support for employment security activities by fraud or other improper means” under Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act.

2) The Defendant, with a written consent to sharing administrative information, can be confirmed as to whether the Plaintiff is a relative by marriage within the fourth degree, and thus, has the responsibility to prove himself/herself as to whether the Plaintiff applied for the instant application by fraud or other improper means. The Defendant should have applied the disposition of imposing additional collection, which is a discretionary act, with sufficient guidance and supervision prior to the punitive administrative disposition. The Defendant has the source of preventing the return of subsidies for promotion of employment and additional collection. The instant disposition is a civil petition by considering the Plaintiff’s attitude toward the Plaintiff’s employee’s influence, and is a response to the Plaintiff’s civil petition. If “On June 2, 2015,” which was entered in the overlapping report by an investigative agency, the Defendant appears to have induced the Plaintiff to receive the subsidies for promotion of employment in accordance with the Work Convention concluded with the investigative agency, and even if the date when the Plaintiff received the subsidies, the Defendant’s employees were to have used the Plaintiff’s discretionary authority to receive the subsidies for the instant investigation agency’s abuse of discretion, and thus, were unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a copy of the labor contract, wage ledger, and passbook in the name of the Plaintiff as documentary evidence, and applied for employment promotion subsidy corresponding to the period from July 1, 2014 to 2015,6,30 for workers D. Upon receipt of the instant application, the Plaintiff stated that the business owner’s confirmation letter of employment promotion subsidy is excluded from those eligible for employment promotion subsidy if the business owner’s spouse, relative within the fourth degree of relationship, or relative within the fourth degree of relationship with the business owner. The Plaintiff stated that the pertinent item is “no corresponding” column.

2) Upon receipt of the instant application, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit data on telephone calls, which is objective data to prove that the Plaintiff had worked in the past at the place of business. However, the Defendant did not submit data on telephone calls, etc. by July 14, 2015, and the Defendant stated that the Defendant did not conduct fact-finding investigations on D on July 21, 2015, and that D was not in a relationship with the employer as of the time of the said investigation, and that it stated that “as of the time of the said investigation, whether the Plaintiff is a relative with the business owner” as “Article 7(7) of the Labor Promotion Assistance Certificate.”

3) After conducting a survey on D, the Defendant: (a) demanded twice to the Plaintiff to submit to the Plaintiff the supporting materials on the difference between the monthly wage amount of D and the actual payment amount; and (b) the Plaintiff submitted the confirmation document prepared by the Plaintiff and D and the letter of use of the post-paid transportation card to the Defendant on August 13, 2015. The Defendant thereafter provided 8.6 million won of the subsidies for promotion of employment to the Plaintiff on August 20, 2015.

4) On September 24, 2015, the chief of the Jeonju Police Station notified the Defendant of the fact that he/she conspired with the Plaintiff and D received the subsidies for employment promotion, and the Defendant issued the instant disposition on October 27, 2015, following the procedure for submitting opinions prior to the disposition of the subsidies for employment promotion.

5) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and D had not been eligible for the subsidies for promotion of employment by marriage within the fourth degree of the same, but had the intent to apply for the subsidies for promotion of employment as if they were not related to relatives within the fourth degree of relationship with the former Ministry of Employment and Labor. On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) prepared an application for the subsidies for promotion of employment on July 3, 2015; (b) indicated that D, a worker, does not correspond to relatives within the fourth degree of relationship with the Plaintiff and the fourth degree of relationship with the Plaintiff himself/herself; and (c) applied for the subsidies for promotion of employment by indicating that D, in the written confirmation of workers, he/she did not correspond to relatives and relatives within the fourth degree of relationship with the Plaintiff himself/herself; and (d) by deceiving the victims, the Plaintiff was indicted for the charge of receiving KRW 8.6 million from the victim as the subsidies for promotion of employment for D; and (d) was finally affirmed on April 7, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 12 to 22, Eul evidence 4 to 15 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the Minister of Labor may order a person who has received or intends to receive support for employment security and vocational skills development programs under this Chapter by fraud or other improper means to restrict such support or return the already provided amount, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 35(2) of the same Act provides that "The Minister of Labor may additionally order a person who has received or has received a refund pursuant to paragraph (1) by fraud or other improper means, to collect an amount not exceeding the amount paid by fraud or other improper means in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor." Article 78(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that "The amount additionally collected pursuant to Article 35(2) of the Act shall be the amount classified as follows. Where a person receives or intends to receive a payment restriction or return a subsidy from the Minister of Employment and Labor by fraud or other improper means for the last five years prior to the date of detection of fraudulent acts, or where there is

"False and other unlawful means" means the active and passive act that could affect the decision-making of the grant of the grant of the grant of the grant of the grant, even though the grant of the grant of the grant of the grant is not possible through normal procedures.

In addition, sanctions against violations of administrative laws are sanctions against the objective fact of violation of administrative laws in order to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, barring any special circumstance, such as where a failure to perform the duty of the violator is not caused due to a justifiable reason, barring any special circumstance, such as where a failure to perform the duty of the violator is not caused, it may be imposed even if the violator does not have intention or negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du5972, May 26, 2000; 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003).

B) In light of the above facts and the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff filed the instant application with the awareness that the Plaintiff constitutes a matrimonial relationship within the fourth degree of relationship with workers D and that the Plaintiff did not constitute a matrimonial relationship within the fourth degree of relationship. Even if the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the wife was a matrimonial relationship within the fourth degree of relationship, this merely constitutes a mere land or mistake in law, and thus, there is no justifiable ground for the Plaintiff’s erroneous determination as above. The Plaintiff’s allegation in this part

2) Judgment on the second argument

(6) In light of the above-mentioned facts and evidence, the Minister of Employment and Labor may order the return under paragraph (1) of Article 35 of the Act, i.e., the amount not exceeding five times the amount he/she has received by fraudulent or other unlawful means. The instant disposition was conducted in accordance with Article 78(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule which was delegated by the Minister of Employment and Labor. It is difficult to deem that the above criteria are not in itself consistent with the Constitution or laws, and there is considerable reason to believe that there is considerable reason to believe that the instant administrative disposition is considerably unfair in light of the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. ② The Defendant made a considerable effort to prevent the unfair receipt of subsidies through objective evidence, attendance investigation, etc. The Defendant would ordinarily be limited to the methods of sharing administrative information, and thus, it would be difficult for the employer to receive the subsidies by means of fraudulent or other unlawful means. ③ The Plaintiff’s voluntary declaration system, which means the date and time notification of the employment promotion of the workers to be received by the employer.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han Jin-hee

Judges Gender Equality;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.