1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the judgment as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff in the trial, and the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

[Supplementary or additional parts] The last sentence of the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is that “an administrative appeal was filed, but the appeal was dismissed on July 8, 2014.” The judgment was dismissed on October 20, 2015, and the authentic copy of the judgment was served on November 3, 2015.”

The third written judgment of the first instance court added “each entry in the evidence Nos. 11 and 16” to the third written judgment of the first instance.

The following shall be added to the 8th fifth (5) judgment of the first instance court, “not submitted”.

“The respective statements in the evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7 through 17, 22 through 26, 32, 33, 36, and 39 cannot be believed as they are in fact because they are materials that the plaintiff or B may voluntarily prepare or secondary materials created based on them, and each statement in the evidence Nos. 2 through 6 violates the statement No. 3 and D (Evidence No. 12 and 13) on November 10, 2014, and it is difficult to believe in light of the course of preparation and purpose of preparation. Each statement in the evidence Nos. 18 through 21 is insufficient to deem that B worked in the office of this case from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.”

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s re-employment at the party room (i) is consistent with the purpose of employment promotion for the socially disadvantaged class even if he/she employs a relative within the fourth degree of relationship, and thus, it is unreasonable to exclude the case where he/she employs a relative within the fourth degree of relationship from the subject of the employment promotion subsidy. (ii) Employment extension support projects for the aged, which are similar employment promotion support projects