1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the instant case, is as follows: (a) using the three-dimensional “1. 6” of the first instance judgment as “the December 31, 2013,” and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters, thereby citing it as is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Supplementary determination] The Defendant asserts that the instant disposition was issued pursuant to Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 78(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, and that the said disposition cannot be deemed to have exceeded the scope of discretionary power, as it is a binding act with no room for discretion. Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that where the Defendant orders a person who received support, such as employment stability, to return the subsidized amount by fraud or other improper means, an amount not exceeding five times the paid amount may be collected in accordance with the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor.

In light of the language and text and content of the provision, the criteria for additional collection under Article 78 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, etc., it is reasonable to view that the instant disposition belongs to an act of discretion, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant disposition falls under the act of discretion, if it is not merely a provision that sets the criteria for imposing additional collection under Article 78 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, and thus, is not effective externally to the public or the court.

Under this premise, according to the enforcement guidelines in 2014, the first instance court and the evidence adopted by this court, the plaintiff's specific contents and character of the violation committed by the plaintiff, the intent of improving the employment environment of the plaintiff, the time and progress of the construction, and the intent of revising the relevant items among the implementation guidelines of employment creation support projects, the employment environment improvement has started before the business owner submits improvement plans.