1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 22, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the internship support to receive subsidies for the implementation of the project for the internship support for small and medium enterprises, and employed Nonparty C after entering into the agreement with the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry on April 2, 2010. On June 2, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into the agreement with the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the internship support and employed Nonparty D.

B. However, on May 29, 2012, the Defendant employed B under the condition that the Plaintiff did not reach “five or more regular employees’ work places,” which is a condition of support under the detailed implementation guidelines for the youth internship system for small and medium enterprises in 2009 (hereinafter “the 2009 Guidelines”), and the 2010, and the 2011 Guidelines for the Implementation of the youth internship system for small and medium enterprises in 201 (hereinafter “the 2010 Guidelines”).

(1) On the ground that the Plaintiff’s employment of C and D as an existing intern constitutes an illegal supply and demand (i.e., return of KRW 21,150,000,000 for the total amount of the internship subsidy and the regular conversion subsidy so far, and (ii) the instant disposition was taken to prohibit the employment of a new intern for one year after the date of receipt of the initial subsidy (from May 13, 2010 to December 23, 2012) from the date of receipt of the final subsidy.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 and 17 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The 2009 guideline which limits the internship company to “five or more full-time employees” is not only only an internal guidelines without any legal nature, but also the number of the Plaintiff’s full-time employees as of July 2009 employed by B (E, F, G, H, I, and J). Thus, the instant disposition on the ground of unfair supply and demand related to B was unlawful (Dispute 1) since C and D had been clearly expressed on the side of the Goyang Chamber of Commerce and Industry prior to the agreement that the Plaintiff had already worked as part-time students at the Plaintiff company, and thus, it is reasonable to determine the Plaintiff’s wrong supply and demand.