Cases
2011Guhap12055 Order to refund subsidies for utilizing small and medium enterprise professionals
Plaintiff
SPS Co., Ltd.
Defendant
The head of the Sung-nam District Employment and Labor Office
Conclusion of Pleadings
March 7, 2012
Imposition of Judgment
April 4, 2012
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim
The Defendant’s order to return KRW 10,800,000 for the utilization of professional manpower of small and medium enterprises against the Plaintiff on January 12, 2010 and disposition to additionally collect KRW 10,800,000, and disposition to restrict payment from February 21, 2008 to February 26, 2010 shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a small and medium enterprise that runs the business of manufacturing and selling cosmetics, non-pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceutical products, and pharmaceutical products. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a small and medium enterprise that is engaged in manufacturing and selling cosmetics, non-pharmaceutical drugs, and pharmaceutical products, after its trade name was established on February 25, 2008.
B. 1) The Plaintiff, as indicated below, was paid KRW 10,80,000 in total by applying for a small and medium enterprise’s promotion subsidy to the head of the Gyeyang-gu Regional Labor and Labor Agency (the quarter of April 2007) and the head of the Seoul Regional Labor and Labor Agency (the quarter of January 2008) as a holder of a master’s degree of management study as shown below:
A person shall be appointed.
2) A withdrawn from the Plaintiff Company on the ground that the contract period on March 31, 2010 expired.
B. On January 201, the head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency (the head office of the Plaintiff was transferred from 450-4, Gangnam-gu, Seoul to 146-8, the other party to the Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul; hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant") prepared a false employment contract and interview, etc. as if the Plaintiff employed the Plaintiff as a worker with a fixed period of time, and received the incentive to utilize the specialized human resources of small and medium enterprises. The fact that the Plaintiff received the incentive to utilize the specialized human resources of the small and medium enterprises was confirmed to be different from the fact, on the ground that the Plaintiff was employed as a worker with no fixed period of time, and this constitutes a case where the Plaintiff received the subsidy by fraud or other improper means (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). In light of the content of the disposition and the description of the evidence No. 1 (Evidence No. 7-9, the same shall apply to the evidence No. 7-9) as set forth in the following table.
List of votes
A person shall be appointed.
C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on January 27, 201, but was dismissed on June 21, 201.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2 to 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 7-6, 9, Eul evidence 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with A on November 1, 2007 without a fixed contract term, and thereafter A cannot work for a long time due to old age and health reasons, and the contract term is set two years from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2010 when entering into an employment contract again with A on April 1, 2008. As such, the Plaintiff does not receive subsidies to utilize small and medium enterprise professionals by fraud or other improper means. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful.
B. Relevant statutes
Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 6 and 9, the fact that the labor contract was made on April 1, 2008 that the plaintiff and the plaintiff shall be employed as a full-time worker with no fixed contract period between the plaintiff and the plaintiff as of April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2010 that the employment contract was made on April 1, 2008 that the plaintiff shall be employed for two years from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2010.
그러나 을 제2 내지 6호증의 각 1, 2, 을 제7호증의 4 내지 8, 을 제8호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 2008. 1. 30. 최초 중소기업 전문인력 활용장려금의 지급을 신청하면서 원고가 2007. 11. 1. A을 계약기간의 정함이 없는 정규직으로 고용하였다는 내용의 위 2007, 11. 1.자 근로계약서를 제출하여 2008. 2. 21. 2,400,000원을 지급받은 후 2008. 7. 24.부터 2009. 1.경까지 4회에 걸쳐 중소기업 전문인력활용 장려금의 지급을 신청하면서 계약기간이 변경된 위 2008. 4. 1.자 근로계약서를 제출하지 아니한 사실, 원고 회사의 취업규칙 제12조는 근로계약기간의 기한은 '특정사업 완료에 필요한 기간을 정한 근로계약'과 '기한을 정하지 않은 근로계약'을 제외하고는 특별한 사유가 없는 한 1년의 기한을 원칙으로 한다고 규정하고 있는 사실, 원고는 2010. 4. 6. A의 고용보험 상실신고를 하면서 그 사유를 계약만료로 하였고, A 역시 피고 담당직원과의 전화통화시 계약만료를 이유로 퇴사하였다고 진술한 사실, 원고는 2010. 10. 21.경부터 2010. 11. 25.경까지 3회에 걸쳐 피고로부터 A의 근로계약서, 사직서, 퇴사처리 관련 서류 등을 제출하라는 요청을 받았음에도 이를 제출하지 아니 하다가 2011. 1. 27. 행정심판을 청구하면서 비로소 위 2008. 4. 1.자 근로계약서를 제출한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 비추이 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 원고가 2008. 4. 1. A과 사이에 근로계약을 체결하면서 계약기간을 원고 회사의 취업규칙에서 정한 1년이 아닌 2년으로 정할 특별한 사정이 보이지 않는 점, 원고가 그 주장과 같이 A과 사이에 2007. 11. 1. 계약기간의 정함이 없는 근로계약을 체결하였다.가 A의 사정으로 인하여 2008. 4. 1. 다시 계약기간을 2년으로 정한 근로계약을 체결하였다면 피고로부터 중소기업 전문인력 활용 장려금의 부정수급을 의심받고 있는 상황에서 A의 근로계약서, 사직서, 퇴사처리 관련 서류 등을 제출하라는 피고의 요청에 적극적으로 응하였을 것으로 보임에도 이에 응하지 아니하였던 점, 원고가 신고한 A의 고용보험 상실사유 및 A의 진술내용 등을 종합하면, 계약기간의 정함이 없는 위 2007. 11. 1.자 근로계약서는 중소기업 전문인력 활용 장려금 지급 신청을 위해 허위로 작성된 것으로 보이고, 위 2008. 4. 1.자 근로계약서 역시 그 작성일자에 진정하게 작성된 것으로 보이지 아니하며, 갑 제13호증의 기재만으로는 이를 뒤집기에 부족하고, A은 2010. 3. 31. 계약기간이 만료되었음을 이유로 원고 회사에서 퇴사한 것으로 보이므로, 원고는 2007. 11. 1. A을 고용하면서 계약기간을 정하였다고 봄이 상당하고, 따라서 원고가 A을 기한의 정함이 없는 근로자로 고용하였다고 하면서 중소기업 전문인력 활용장려금의 지급을 신청하여 합계 10,800,000원을 지급받은 것은 거짓이나 그 밖의 부정한 방법으로 중소기업 전문인력활용 장려금을 지급받은 경우에 해당한다 할 것이어서, 이 사건 처분은 적법하다. 따라서 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.
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.
Judges
The presiding judge, Kim Jong-sik
Judges Hong-soo
Judges Kang Jeong-hee
Attached Form
A person shall be appointed.
A person shall be appointed.
A person shall be appointed.
A person shall be appointed.
A person shall be appointed.
A person shall be appointed.
A person shall be appointed.