2010Guhap2175 Revocation of Disposition of Disposition of Site Payment for Employment Stabilization Project Subsidies

A

The Administrator of the Daejeon Regional Labor Agency

September 1, 2010

November 3, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On May 10, 2010, the defendant revoked the disposition of site payment for employment security projects rendered against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 21, 2009, the Plaintiff, a person operating a tax accounting office in the name of "Atax accounting office", had newly employed workers B from the Defendant's vocational brokerage website as of October 21, 2009 through the Defendant's vocational brokerage website, and on April 13, 2010, filed an application for payment of KRW 1,80,000 of the incentives for new employment promotion to the Defendant from October 21, 2009 to January 20, 200.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff employed B as a part-time employee for the purpose of performing simple work, such as the daily document classification, etc. The plaintiff himself/herself registered job seeking on the Worknet Internet site, and the plaintiff who had no employment plan at the time was later employed as a full-time employee only after he/she knows that B was a job seeking and registered. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful by viewing that the plaintiff applied for a new employment promotion subsidy for the purpose of receiving a new employment promotion subsidy by illegal means.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On or before September 29, 2009, the Plaintiff employed B as a part-time employee who works at a City level 4,000 won per day at the Plaintiff’s tax accounting office.

(2) On September 29, 2009, after the employment of the Plaintiff as above, B registered job seeking on the Defendant’s job offering and job seeking website using the Plaintiff’s office computer. On October 12, 2009, the Plaintiff registered job offering to recruit employees on the Worknet. As a result, B and the Internet IP address (C) used by the Plaintiff was the same.

(3) On April 13, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application for a new employment promotion subsidy with the Defendant on the ground that he/she employed a new employee by the Defendant’s worknet good offices; and (b) written a written confirmation attached to the said application with B; and (c) as above, the Plaintiff had already employed B as a part-time employee; (b) however, the new employer does not have any fact that he/she had worked before entering the current workplace (which is irrelevant to the form of work, such as day-time, part-time, part-time, and on-the-job training), and (c) stated differently to the effect that “the relationship between the present employer and the new employer is not a business owner having a substantial relation to re-employment, acquisition, merger, transfer, succession of employment, etc.”

(4) However, the above confirmation letter prepared by the Plaintiff was able to contain the following contents in the same text.

New employment promotion incentives shall be conducted after receiving the referral of the employment security office, and an interview shall be conducted in advance, and an interview may be conducted in advance and a request for mediation after the fact shall be made as it falls under formal arrangement and thus the payment of incentives can be a disposition of land payment or illegal supply and demand.

Where there is a fact that he/she works in advance at the relevant place of business, he/she may be in advance between the employer or the employee of the place of business before an interview or in the case of a relative, he/she may be in the form of formal arrangement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

(d) Markets:

(1) In full view of the provisions of Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 35 of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 1039, Jun. 4, 2010); and Articles 26 and 56 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22269, Jul. 12, 2010); the head of an employment security office provides that, under the ordinary conditions of labor market, the head of an employment security office shall, in order to promote employment of those who have, inter alia, difficulties in employment by calculating the date of registering their jobs at employment security offices in order to promote employment, pay the amount of incentives already paid to the business owner who newly employed the insured through the referral of employment security offices and who did not retire from employment due to employment adjustment for three months prior to employment; and 12 months after employment to the business owner who received or intends to receive the incentives, etc. by fraudulent or other unlawful means, the amount of incentives

(2) In light of the above provisions, if the elderly, disabled, female head, etc. who have difficulties in finding a job under the ordinary conditions of the labor market are in a condition of job-seeking for a certain period, the job security office has arranged the job-seeking enterprise and provided a subsidy to an employer who newly employs them through the job-seeking enterprise, thereby promoting employment promotion. Thus, even if the job type or method, type or name of the job is an on-the-job training, training period, or part-time training, and if an employer already employs a person as a full-time employee, it cannot be deemed to have been newly employed through the actual arrangement of the job security office, and even if it can be deemed that a change in the form of work as a full-time employee is a new employee, if so, it shall be deemed that the newly employed employee falls under the case where the former employee is employed pursuant to the above provisions, and thus, it shall be excluded

(3) As to the instant case, it is difficult to view that B had been unemployed at the time of applying for job seeking to the Plaintiff since it was reasonable to view that B had been employed before September 29, 2009. ② Even if the Plaintiff employed B as a regular employee on October 21, 2010, it cannot be deemed that B was employed through the referral of the employment security office. ③ At the time of applying for the grant, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have rejected B’s employment through the referral of the employment security office. ③ At the time of applying for the grant, the Plaintiff prepared an application for promotion of employment differently from the fact that “B did not work before being employed at the present workplace, and is not a person who is not a plaintiff or another employee,” and ④ as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s act of employing an employee as a new employee in the manner of employment promotion was not considered to fall under the Plaintiff’s fraudulent payment, and thus, the Plaintiff did not constitute the Plaintiff’s final employment restriction.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

Chief Judge of the Supreme Court

Judges Kim Gin-won

Judges Kim Gung-jin

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.