(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.1.17. 선고 2012구합4443 판결

On January 3, 2012, the Defendant revoked the disposition of site wages and illegal receipt of small and medium enterprise employment improvement subsidies granted to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells electronic components on the fourth floor located in the building of 100 block 111 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) located in the Namdong-dong, Incheon Metropolitan City. On November 2010, the Plaintiff filed a report on a plan for improving the employment environment of small and medium enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project plan”) with the content of improving the employment environment of the Defendant by referring to the improvement of the restaurant and the main environment, the establishment of dormitories, and the extension of the training room and the physical fitness room. On January 10, 201, the Plaintiff filed a report on the instant project plan to change the content of the instant project plan to the “establishment of a dormitory for female, the extension of training room, and the extension of physical fitness room”, and obtained approval from the Defendant on November 12, 2011.

B. On June 30, 201, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a report on the completion of the environmental improvement for small and medium enterprises, including a dormitory (excluding a restaurant) environment improvement and an extension of an educational room (including a physical training room) in accordance with the instant project plan, and submitted a report on the completion of the employment improvement for small and medium enterprises on July 1, 201, and submitted a complete report on the fourth floor of the instant building by extending the 400m of the instant building and installing an educational room and a physical training room on the third floor, while completing the improvement of the dormitory environment on the third floor, the Plaintiff submitted the building ledger for the instant building (hereinafter “instant building ledger”). On the instant building ledger, the content of the report on the completion of the construction of a dormitory (excluding a restaurant) environment improvement and the alteration of the 118.5m of the 3th floor “welfare facility” to 118.5m of the welfare facility.

C. As a result of a field investigation on July 7, 201, the Defendant confirmed that the improvement of the employment environment pursuant to the instant business plan was not completed due to the failure to complete the establishment of the dormitory of the third floor and the fourth floor physical training room of the instant building. On July 8, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of a corrective instruction and application for subsidies. On August 26, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted a report on the completion of employment environment improvement, stating that the completion date of the improvement of the employment environment was August 17, 2011, to the Defendant.

D. On December 14, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the improvement of the employment environment of small and medium enterprises upon the completion of the instant project plan (hereinafter “instant subsidy”). However, on the ground that the instant building register submitted by the Plaintiff was forged, the Defendant rendered a disposition refusing to pay the instant subsidy against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on January 3, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 13, 20, 21 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff delegated the submission of the documents related to the instant application to the Culture Design A, and submitted the building ledger of this case forged without notifying the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not forge the building ledger of this case, and the building ledger of this case was not a document to be submitted for the receipt of the instant subsidy. Thus, the building ledger of this case was forged and submitted.

Even if there is no reason to obtain support from "a false or other fraudulent means" under Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain support by fraud or other improper means, the Plaintiff did not err by neglecting his duty to the Plaintiff in light of the fact that the instant building ledger was forged.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to the assertion that it does not constitute a case where a person seeks support by fraud or other improper means

"False or any other fraudulent means" that can be subject to sanctions against restrictions on payment under Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act refers to any and all fraudulent acts committed by an unqualified business owner in order to conceal the eligibility or eligibility to receive benefits, which may affect the decision-making on the payment of subsidies for improving employment environment of small and medium enterprises (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4272, Jun. 11, 2009).

Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Oct. 12, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22603, Dec. 31, 2010); however, Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that an employer who has submitted a plan for improving employment environment pursuant to the former Article 15 and meets the requirements for the payment of subsidies under the former Article 15 shall submit a report on the improvement of employment environment within 6 months before the date of application for the improvement of employment environment (the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act shall apply to the Plaintiff who submitted the business plan of this case) and submits a report on the improvement of employment environment within 10 months after the date of application for the improvement of employment environment within 6 months after the date of application for the improvement plan (the monthly average of the improvement plan for employment environment of small and medium enterprises within 10 months after the date of application for the improvement plan for the improvement of employment environment of the small and medium enterprises).

The following facts, which are acknowledged in light of the facts acknowledged in the process of the above disposition, as well as the evidence mentioned above, and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 6, and 8 as a whole, are considered as follows: ① The plaintiff entered into a contract on construction work related to the business plan of this case with the towing Building Design A, and entrusted Gap with the authority to submit a report on completion of employment environment improvement for small and medium enterprises to receive the subsidy of this case and to apply for subsidies; according to the above delegation, Gap submitted the report on completion of the employment environment improvement in the name of the plaintiff and the building ledger of this case; ② The part of the building ledger of this case, which indicated "the third floor of the building of this case" as "the third floor of this case 118.5mm" as "welfare facility" and ③ The plaintiff did not have authority to submit the report on completion of employment improvement on June 30, 201, and the plaintiff did not have authority to complete the above improvement of the employment environment of the third floor of this case and the building register of this case.

(2) As to the assertion that there is a justifiable reason that cannot be caused by negligence of duty

Sanction against violation of administrative laws is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of administrative laws and regulations to achieve administrative purposes, and thus, barring special circumstances, such as where a failure to perform the duty of the violator is not caused due to a justifiable reason, barring special circumstances, such as where a failure to perform the duty of the violator is not caused by intention or negligence, it may be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 200

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as above and the overall purport of the arguments, i.e., the Plaintiff entrusted A with the authority to submit a report on completion of the employment environment improvement for small and medium enterprises to receive the instant subsidy and to apply for subsidies; ② A submitted a report on completion of the employment environment improvement in the Plaintiff’s name and relevant documents, such as the building ledger of this case; ③ The Plaintiff did not complete the establishment of a dormitory of the third and fourth floor of the instant building until the report on completion of the employment environment improvement and the building ledger of this case was submitted to the Defendant; and ③ The Plaintiff submitted the building ledger of this case, which was forged, to the Defendant, and even if the Plaintiff knew of this fact, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was responsible for the Plaintiff’s act, as long as the Plaintiff did not confirm the completion of the employment environment improvement work in accordance with the instant business plan, and did not prevent such violation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.