2012Nu1749 Revocation of revocation of revocation of the payment of employment improvement subsidy to small and medium enterprises

A Stock Company

The Administrator of the Gyeonggi Local Labor Agency;

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap7404 Decided December 8, 2011

May 17, 2012

June 7, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On August 26, 2010, the Defendant revoked the disposition of site salary for the improvement of employment environment of small and medium enterprises against the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Acknowledgement of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this Court is that the 7th half of the judgment of the first instance is the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Dec. 31, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22603, Dec. 31, 201). The 14th of the 14th of the 14th of the 14th of the 14th of the 14th of the 14th of the 14th of the 14th of the 14th of the 12th of the 12th of the 12th of the 14th of the 14th of the 201

2. Additional determination

In light of the purport of Article 20 of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Dec. 31, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22603; hereinafter the same), Articles 7 and 8 of the former Regulations on the Payment of Subsidies for Improvement of Employment Environment for Small and Medium Enterprises (Ministry of Labor Notice No. 2009-20, May 14, 2009; hereinafter referred to as “Public Notice of Subsidies”), the Defendant asserts that the case where the working conditions are modified as in the instant case B does not constitute

Article 20 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "a business owner who expands an employment opportunity may provide necessary support as prescribed by the President," Article 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the Minister of Employment and Labor shall determine and publicly notify necessary matters," and Article 7 (1) 2 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the monthly average number of workers for the three immediately preceding months of the month in which an application for subsidy is filed shall exceed the monthly average number of workers for the three preceding months of the month in which an improvement plan is filed, and Article 8 (1) 5 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the worker who receives monthly wage of less than 600,000 won shall be excluded from the worker under Article 7."

In light of the purport of the aforementioned relevant provisions, the meaning of Article 15(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act is not limited to the case where a worker is newly employed, but it also includes the case where a change in the working conditions as in the case of the instant case B, thereby receiving more than KRW 600,000 or more than KRW 60,000,000.

On the other hand, Article 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Dec. 31, 2010, deleted Article 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, and Article 17(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, provides that only where the number of employees increases by improving the employment environment and employing the unemployed, the Minister of Employment and Labor may subsidize part of wages and installation expenses of facilities to the business owner pursuant to Article 20 of the Employment Insurance Act.

However, barring any special circumstance, whether an administrative disposition is lawful shall be determined on the basis of the relevant law and fact-finding status at the time of the disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4464, Oct. 25, 2002). As such, Article 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act applies not only to the instant disposition, but also to the case where an employee increases employment under Article 15(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act by virtue of Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Employment Insurance Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

For the assistance of the presiding judge;

Judges Lee Jae-chul

Judge Shin Dong-hun