The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Case summary and key issue

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

(1) Under Article 25 of the Framework Act on Employment Policy and Article 25(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, the Ministry of Employment and Labor implements a “youth employment internship program” that provides unemployed youth with experience to work as a youth in a small and medium enterprise.

The purpose of this is to provide opportunities for the development of job ability and the creation of career experience and to promote employment for regular jobs suitable for aptitude and experience.

(2) According to the “Guidelines for the Implementation of the Youth Finding System,” which the Ministry of Employment and Labor determines and publicly announces the matters necessary for the implementation of the above business (hereinafter the “Guidelines”), an operating agency which is entrusted with the business operation by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, shall enter into an internship support agreement with the implementing company (Article 2-1). In a case where the implementing company applies for or receives government subsidies in violation of the instant guidelines and the internship support agreement, or where there are substantial circumstances where it is difficult for the implementing company to achieve the purpose of the internship business by fraudulent or other unlawful means, the pertinent internship support agreement may be terminated. In a case where the operating agency fails to implement the internship support agreement, etc., the implementing company may request termination thereof, and may terminate it under mutual agreement.

(3) The plaintiff is an institution entrusted by the Ministry of Employment and Labor with the work of youth employment internship program.

On the other hand, since 2009, the Defendant participated in the youth employment internship project as an executor company and entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff for youth internship support every year from 2013 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

According to the instant agreement, if the Defendant received subsidies unfairly in violation of the instant guidelines and agreements, it should be returned at the request of the local government office or the Plaintiff.

(Article 9).