logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.05.30 2018구합7024
일자리안정자금 지급중단처분 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 24, 2012, the Plaintiff is a tax accounting corporation established pursuant to the Certified Tax Accountant Act, and its purpose is to act on behalf of the Plaintiff for filing a return, application and request on taxes.

The head office of the plaintiff is located in the building B in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the fourth floor, and 28 branches nationwide, such as the Credit Finance Center and the Smart Branch.

B. On March 1, 2013, the Plaintiff’s smart branch registered the representative C, the location of the place of business, the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building and E, and commenced its business.

On August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff’s Hando Financial Center had its representative F, place of business registered as the G building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and H, and commenced its business.

C. The Employment Stabilization Fund (hereinafter “Subsidy”) refers to subsidies, etc. granted to business owners for the stable operation of businesses of micro enterprises and small and medium enterprises and for the stabilization of workers’ employment when raising the minimum wage, and the payment was commenced from January 1, 2018, and the Defendant shall perform duties concerning application, examination, payment, post management, etc. of subsidies.

From January 2018, the Defendant paid the amount of subsidies at the request of the Plaintiff’s smart branch and leisure financial center from January 2018.

On April 19, 2018, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff’s smart branch and credit finance center to provide data to verify the independence of the institution. On May 11, 2018, the Plaintiff’s smart branch and credit finance center did not provide subsidies to the Plaintiff’s smart branch and credit finance center on the ground that “it constitutes a tax accounting corporation under the Certified Tax Accountants Act with the branches of the tax accounting corporation; even if a tax accounting corporation engages in commercial activities by business registration number of the head office and branch office, the subsidiary country shall integrate and settle the accounts of the main branch and make a corporate tax return and payment at the tax office having jurisdiction over the head office, which is the location of the main office, where the corporate tax is paid, and it does not constitute an independent business establishment due to lack of independence of the accounts.”

arrow