2011Guhap4826 Revocation of revocation of the additional payment of employment improvement subsidy

A

Head of Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Agency

February 29, 2012

March 28, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On November 12, 2010, the Defendant’s disposition of site wage for the improvement of employment environment of small and medium enterprises against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff registered the business from around September 16, 199, to operate the steel network manufacturing business, and reported the Defendant’s plan to repair the dormitories, cafeterias, and shower facilities at the workplace on September 30, 2009. On November 9, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained approval of the improvement project plan equivalent to KRW 59,643,820 of the project cost (hereinafter “instant improvement project”).

B. After completing the instant improvement project on April 23, 2010, the Plaintiff reported the completion of employment environment improvement to the Defendant on May 19, 2010, and the report was written by the average number of workers between the three immediately preceding months (from June 2009 to August 2009) of the month in which the filing date of the report on the improvement plan ( September 30, 2009) falls.

C. On October 15, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for payment of KRW 1,200,000 for new employment workers’ subsidy and KRW 29,821,913 for the investment cost due to the improvement of employment environment.

D. On November 12, 2010, the Defendant rendered a decision on the site price of the above employment environment improvement subsidy to the Plaintiff on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C reported to the worker who was increased after the employment environment improvement by the Plaintiff had already been employed on August 4, 2009, which was the month before the submission of the improvement plan in this case, and continued to work on September 21, 2009 only. Thus, the improvement plan in this case was submitted on September 21, 2009, and it does not constitute the increased number of employees under Article 15(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22269, Jul. 12, 2010) and Article 18(3) of the Employment Improvement Act where the monthly average number of employees (6.33, Jun. 2, 2009) of the three immediately preceding months (7, July 2010 through September 9, 2010) of the month in which the application for employment improvement subsidy was made is less than 0.67 persons, and this does not constitute the increased number of employees under Article 15(1) and (3) of the Employment Improvement Act.

E. On January 29, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on September 6, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

A. C began to work on a daily basis from August 4, 2009, but the Plaintiff’s regular employment of C is 2009, 9, and 21. As such, it constitutes a case where one average number of workers (6 persons) of the three immediately preceding months (7.7, 2010 to September 201) of the month in which the filing date of an application for subsidies to improve employment environment belongs, compared to the average number of workers (6 persons) of the three immediately preceding months (7, 2010 to September 201) of the month in which the filing date of the instant improvement plan falls.

B. On May 19, 2010, the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s construction completion report, and issued an order to correct the entrance, etc. on June 21, 2010. On the other hand, on the number of increased employees, the Defendant did not issue any corrective order as to the number of increased employees, and thus violated the predictability and the principle of trust and good faith, and exceeded and abused the discretion.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. The plaintiff 2. A. Determination on the plaintiff's assertion

Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence 6, 7, Eul evidence 10, and Eul evidence 11, C is recognized as having worked every day from August 4, 2009 to September 21, 2009, and therefore C is not a daily worker employed for less than one month. Thus, C is not a daily worker employed by the plaintiff as of September 21, 2009, but a daily worker employed by the plaintiff as of August 4, 2009.

According to the above facts of recognition, C constitutes a person who has already been employed in the 3 months immediately preceding the month belonging to the date when the plaintiff submitted an employment environment improvement plan ( September 30, 2009). Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2. B

Employment environment improvement subsidy is a system for employers who expand opportunities for employment through improving the employment environment of small and medium enterprises to pay subsidies and encourage them to create employment for small and medium enterprises, and whether to pay employment improvement subsidy is left to the discretion of administrative agencies.

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of evidence Nos. 6 through 9 and the relevant statutes, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to violate the predictability and the principle of good faith, or to deviate from and abuse the scope of discretionary power, and thus, the Plaintiff’

(1) On April 15, 2010, the Plaintiff attended, according to the “commencence for the activation of the Employment Environment Improvement Subsidy System for Small and Medium Enterprises (Evidence No. 6)” data (Evidence No. 6), it was stipulated that the support should be provided only when it can be deemed that the job creation was actually made through the improvement of the employment environment.

(2) On-site inspections conducted on June 29, 2010 and October 14, 2010 by the Defendant’s public officials on-site inspections conducted on October 2010 did not verify whether the number of employees increased or not. The Plaintiff applying for employment improvement subsidies has endeavored to meet the requirements for substantial employment increase through relevant regulations and materials distributed at the KLS conference, and the Defendant has no obligation to provide prior guidance for the substantial increase of employment of the Plaintiff.

5. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge, judge and judicial police officer

Judges Kim Yong-nam

Judges Choi Jae-in

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.