(영문) 수원지방법원 2012.2.9. 선고 2011구합11144 판결

The Defendant’s disposition of site pay for improving the employment environment of small and medium enterprises in 2010 against the Plaintiff on August 2, 2011 and disposition of restricting the payment for one year from August 1, 201 to July 31, 2012, respectively, shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a small and medium enterprise established on January 17, 2005 for the purpose of automated machines, video processing inspection devices, and manufacturing and selling electronic components.

B. On October 27, 2010, Article 20 of the Employment Insurance Act, and Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a report on the renewal of employment exchange with the number of employees scheduled to be employed after the improvement of employment environment as 65,930,00 won of dormitory, shower room, toilet, education room, and expense check amount as 65,930,000 won, and the Defendant approved the above employment improvement plan on November 12, 2010.

C. After completing the above improvement project on March 18, 201, on April 14, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted a report on the completion of the employment environment improvement to include the monthly average number of workers in March immediately preceding the month to which the date of submitting the employment improvement plan to the Defendant belongs as 8,33 (the number of monthly average workers in March immediately preceding the month, nine preceding the month, eight preceding the month, and eight preceding month).

D. On June 20, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the payment of the employment improvement subsidy of KRW 37,765,00 ( KRW 32,965,000 ( KRW 1,200 per 1,200 per 1,000) to the increased worker’s wage support amounting to KRW 32,965,00,000 (hereinafter “instant application”).

E. On August 2, 2011, the Defendant rendered a disposition to restrict the payment of subsidies, etc. for one year from August 1, 2011 to July 31, 2012 to the Plaintiff for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

According to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it does not include the number of workers employed from the date of submitting an improvement plan to the date of completion of the employment environment improvement when calculating the number of increased number of workers for the purpose of paying the employment improvement subsidy. Since the plaintiff is confirmed to have filed a false report on the acquisition date of the fourth insured status of the newly employed workers during the above period and applied for the subsidy,

Pursuant to Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree, a land payment disposition and a restriction on payment shall be imposed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, and 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In calculating the 'average number of workers of the month to which the date of completing the employment environment improvement belongs and the 'average number of workers of the following 2 months' in the application of this case, it is true that the monthly number of workers is calculated on the 4th insurance acquisition date reported as late as the date of actual commencement of employment for new employees. However, this does not constitute a case where the plaintiff received the support by 'false or other unlawful means' under Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act, since the plaintiff confirmed the job ability and work status, etc. for a certain period of time and reported the acquisition date of the 4th insurance under mutual agreement, on the ground that the 4th insurance policy is determined and reported for the purpose of fraudulent receipt of the employment environment improvement charges.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 7(1) and (2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides for the provision on the payment of subsidies for improving the employment environment for small and medium enterprises delegated by Article 20 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as “the provision on the payment of subsidies for improving the employment environment for small and medium enterprises”) shall be conducted by a business owner of at least 10,000,000 won, and (2) the monthly average number of workers of the month to which the date

(3) In cases where a worker does not leave his/her job due to an adjustment in employment from three months before the date of application for the improvement subsidy to six months after the date of application, the improvement subsidy shall be paid once to the increased worker plus 50% of the amount invested in the improvement of employment environment (which shall not exceed 50,000,000 won) and 1,20,000 won per capita (which shall not exceed 30). In this context, in calculating the number of workers, the number of workers employed from the date of submission of the improvement plan to the date of completion of the improvement in employment environment shall not be included (Article 7(1)2 of the Public Notice of the Regulations on the Payment of Employment Improvement Subsidies for Small and Medium Enterprises). In addition, Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 56(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the person who intends to obtain the improvement subsidy, etc. shall not be paid the subsidy or incentive

2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on March 21, 2011 the date on which the four primary insurance contracts of the E and F were acquired after submitting the employment environment improvement plan to the Defendant. Likewise, the Plaintiff reported on April 1, 201 as the date on which the four primary insurance contracts of E and F were acquired. In calculating the monthly average number of new employees in March 2011 and the next two months upon filing the instant application, the Plaintiff was employed on the four primary insurance contracts of which the date on which the employment environment improvement was completed, and the number of new employees in March 201 was employed on the date on which the four primary insurance contracts were acquired as above and the number of employees in May 2, 201 plus the number of employees in May 11, 2011 and the number of employees in March 31, 2011 + the average number of employees in March 31, 2011.

However, in calculating the number of workers as seen earlier, it does not include the number of workers employed until March 201, to which the date of completing the employment environment improvement belongs. In full view of the purport of the whole pleadings as to the statements in the evidence Nos. 8 and 10 and witness B and some of the testimonys in the evidence No. 300,000 won in the Plaintiff’s monetary payment, 300,000 won in the number of workers employed by the court prior to February 10, 201, 5, 12,50 won in the employment environment improvement, 30,000 won in the number of workers employed by the court prior to February 22, 2011, 30,000 won in the employment environment improvement, 12,50 won in the employment environment improvement at the employment expense of the Plaintiff’s 20,010, 301, 25, 201, 301, 201, 201.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not include the increased number of employees employed in the delivery of March 201, 201, which belongs to the completion date of the employment environment improvement, the Plaintiff reported on March 21, 201, which was later than the actual employment date, and attempted to receive the employment environment improvement amount by manipulating the number of employees in an unlawful way, and thus, it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff intended to receive the subsidies by fraud or other improper means.

3) Therefore, pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 56(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the instant disposition to restrict the Defendant’s payment of subsidies, etc. for one year from the date of restriction on payment is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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