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 January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff ordinarily engaged in passenger transport business, etc. submitted relevant documents, such as the rules of employment in 2007, stating that the retirement age prescribed by the rules of employment extended from 55 to 57 years of age as of April 1, 2007 to the Defendant was extended from 55 to 57 years of age, and received a total of 35,874,150 won from the Defendant’s subsidies for extension of employment of the aged from 1st quarter to 1st quarter of 2013 (hereinafter “instant subsidies”).

B. After that, on August 24, 2006, the Defendant had become aware of the fact that the Plaintiff submitted the Rules of Employment in 2006 (Enforcement, Mar. 1, 2006) that extended the retirement age from 55 to 57 years of age. In fact, even if the Plaintiff had already implemented the retirement age from 55 to 57 years of age on March 1, 2006, the Defendant had filed a false application for subsidies by submitting relevant documents, such as the Rules of Employment in 2007 as if he had extended the retirement age on April 1, 207 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”), and on September 19, 2014, 35,874,150 won (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff for the extension of the retirement age from 20 years of age to 35 years of age, 71,748, 308, 305, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”). The instant disposition should be additionally collected from 20 years of age 2 to 1.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion of this case.