1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 13, 2013, the Plaintiff engaged in urban bus transportation concluded management consulting agreements with the Korean Corporate Diagnosis Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korean Corporate Diagnosis”) and government subsidies.

On January 9, 2014, 1201, the date of application (the name of the original applicant) the amount of support for the relevant quarter of the date of application (hereinafter referred to as “first application”) 2,789,840 5, 201, the first quarter 201, the second quarter 4,500,000 5,782,570 5,780 84 quarterly 201, 2011 5,7,451,610 95 quarterly 1, 2011 9,338,680 136, 2012 quarterly 11,80,80, 0014 10,674, 1015, 104, 194, 15, 194, 105, 2015 quarterly 14, 2012.

14 10 10 10 2. 2 quarterly 10,180,00 13 113 11,2013 9,284,190 12. 192 hereinafter referred to as "second application"

() 9,285,150 on April 2013 quarterly 9,285,150 12 December 21, 2014; 103,703,370 134 (persons subject to protection: 25 persons)

B. The Plaintiff filed a subsidy for extension of the retirement age for the aged from the Defendant in the first quarter of 2011 to the Defendant in the fourth quarter of 2013 through a Korean corporate diagnosis and received KRW 103,703,370 from the Defendant as follows.

C. On July 2014, the Defendant conducted an investigation into whether the Plaintiff’s subsidies for extension of employment of the elderly workers were unlawfully received. Although the Plaintiff had already extended the retirement age to 58 in 2001 pursuant to the collective agreement, the Defendant deceiving the Defendant as if he had extended the retirement age only by submitting the rules of employment in 2002 (the retirement age 55) and the rules of employment in 2009 (the retirement age 58 years) without submitting the collective agreement at the time of filing an application for subsidies for extension of employment of the elderly workers.

Accordingly, the defendant issued a prior notice of disposition on August 5, 2014 and received a written opinion from the plaintiff on September 22, 2014, and on September 2, 2014, the defendant issued a disposition of restricting payment and returning subsidies for illegal receipt as follows in accordance with Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 78 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.