The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the instant disposition violated the principle of relevant public notice or equality, the lower court interpreted that, pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the former Regulations on Assistance to Standard Workplaces for Persons with Disabilities (amended by Ministry of Labor No. 15, Feb. 27, 2008; Act No. 2012-35, Mar. 21, 2012; Act No. 2010, Feb. 27, 2008; the Plaintiff who received the first subsidy was paid the final subsidy after the enforcement date of the said public notice, the said public notice does not be subject to the said public notice; and further, it did not violate the principle of equality, even if the said Addenda provision excluded the business owner who received the subsidy prior to the enforcement date from the subject of the said public notice, and further, it did not violate the principle of equality, even if the Defendant did not modify the relevant provisions of the agreement concluded between the original Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”).

Examining the relevant legal principles in light of the records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the Addenda provision and the principle of equality, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making as to whether the instant disposition violated the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making refers to the principle that, when an administrative body takes an administrative action, it shall not impose an obligation on the other party or enforce the implementation thereof.

In light of the fact that the purpose of the employment opportunities support system for disabled persons is to create self-support conditions and improve the welfare of disabled persons through the expansion of employment opportunities for disabled persons, and that if the employment maintenance obligation for disabled persons employed prior to the selection of a standard workplace for disabled persons is not imposed, the effects of new employment creation may significantly decline, the lower court shall grant subsidies corresponding to the number of disabled persons newly employed by the Defendant.