beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.
Defendant.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on December 21, 2004 for the main purpose of security business, etc.
B. On the ground that the retirement age of the workplace was changed from 60 to 65 years of age, the Plaintiff applied for a subsidy for promotion of employment of the aged to the Defendant, and received a total of KRW 82,284,010 from 3rd quarter of 2008 to 3rd quarter of 2012 as indicated below.
연번 지급분기 지급일자 지원 근로자 지원금액(원) 1 2008년 3분기 2008. 10. 16 2명 (A, B) 1,074,180 2 2008년 4분기 2009. 1. 29. 2명 (A, B) 1,800,000 3 2009년 1분기 2009. 5. 11. 2명 (A, B) 1,800,000 4 2009년 2분기 2009. 8. 25. 3명 (A, B, C) 2,700,000 5 2009년 3분기 2009. 10. 28. 3명 (A, B, C) 2,700,000 6 2009년 4분기 2010. 1. 27. 4명 (A, B, C, D) 3,600,000 7 2010년 1분기 2010. 4. 26. 5명 (A, B, C, D, E) 3,942,850 8 2010년 2분기 2010. 8. 3. 5명 (A, B, C, D, E) 4,500,000 9 2010년 3분기 2010. 11. 3. 5명 (A, B, C, D, E) 4,500,000 10 2010년 4분기 2011. 1. 31. 7명 (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) 6,300,000 11 2011년 1분기 2011. 5. 16. 12명 (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L) 8,756,680 12 2011년 2분기 2011. 7. 21. 10명 (C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L) 8,220,000 13 2011년 3분기 2011. 10. 25. 9명 (C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L) 7,500,000 14 2011년 4분기 2012. 2. 2. 8명 (D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L) 7,200,000 15 2012년 1분기 2012. 4. 25. 8명 (D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L) 7,025,800 16 2012년 2분기 2012. 8. 7. 7명 (F, G, H, I, J, K, L) 5,332,250 17 2012년 3분기 2012. 10. 22. 6명 (F, G, J, K, L, M) 5,332,250 합계 82,284,010
C. On January 17, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the payment of KRW 4.2 million of the subsidies for promotion of employment of the aged in the quarter of April 2012.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s investigation against the Plaintiff constitutes contractual workers who reported that the retirement age was extended by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant workers”) who are not subject to the retirement age regulations, and even if the Plaintiff did not apply the actual retirement age to its employees, the Defendant did not apply the said age to its employees.