2011Nu42781. Suspension of payment and return of subsidies for employment security programs and additional collection

Revocation of Disposition

A Stock Company

The President of the Central Local Labor Agency

Incheon District Court Decision 2010Guhap4937 Decided November 2, 2011

May 4, 2012

June 1, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s order to return a new employment promotion subsidy of KRW 4.8 million to the Plaintiff on January 12, 2010, imposition of additional collection of KRW 9 million, and disposition to restrict payment of all kinds of encouragement and subsidy from January 15, 2009 to October 21, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is that the reasoning for this case is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion as follows. Thus, the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text

2. The addition;

The defendant asserted to the effect that the instant disposition is legitimate since the Plaintiff’s confirmation document submitted by the Plaintiff upon applying for the new employment promotion subsidy stated B as “satising recommendation” and the actual interview date as “B on October 29, 2008 (the day on which the job seeking registration is extended and requested to be arranged)” was not paid. Unlike the fact, the Plaintiff stated the employment channel as “employment support center referral” and the interview date as “ October 30, 2008” and the interview date was stated as “the date on which the job seeking is requested to be extended and arranged.”

However, in light of the legal principles of Supreme Court Decision 2010Du28373 Decided August 18, 201, the facts acknowledged by the first instance court, which was cited in the judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff’s act does not constitute an illegal receipt of the subsidy, since it cannot be said that the Plaintiff was not entitled to receive the new employment promotion subsidy. The Defendant’s assertion has no merit.

[Judgment of the court of first instance recognizes all the fact-finding contents of the court of first instance; however, according to the legal principles on the basis of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant asserts to the effect that the payment of the new employment promotion subsidy is unreasonable even if he/she conducts formal mediation (see, e.g., Disposition 5 of the Reasons for Appeal). However, it cannot be accepted

3. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge, the judge and the Gangwon-gu

The number of judges

Judges Noh Ho-ho