2017Gudan60133 flexible job creation subsidy shall be returned.

A

The head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office Seoul Western Site

July 18, 2017

August 29, 2017

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On May 12, 2016, the Defendant revoked the order to return KRW 15,450,000 due to the fraudulent receipt of the job creation subsidy to the Plaintiff on a time-time basis.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a report on a plan for creation of a new date-time date-based premium under the name of “A” and obtained approval from the Defendant on October 20, 2014.

B. On February 1, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 5,150,00 for six months from March 2, 2015 to September 2 of the same year after newly employing B as the operator of a training facility. The Defendant, on May 12, 2016, issued a decision to refund KRW 15,450,00 (i.e., the illegally received KRW 5,150,000 + the additionally collected amount + the additionally collected amount of KRW 10,30,000 from May 12, 2016 to the Plaintiff by fraud or other improper means, such as preparing a false labor contract as if the Plaintiff employed B as an employee without a fixed period of time despite having employed the Plaintiff as a contractual employee, and issued a decision to restrict the payment of subsidies to the Plaintiff from May 12, 2016 to May 16, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful since it was filed after the lapse of the filing period.

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including serial numbers), the defendant filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on May 17, 2016, stating that "the defendant seeks the revocation of the disposition of the notice of the payment of the Employment Insurance Fund refund issued by the defendant to the plaintiff on May 16, 2016, but the purport of the appeal on March 7, 2017 was changed to "a revocation of the order of return of the amount of 1,5450,000 won paid by the defendant to the plaintiff on May 12, 2016." However, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the application for change of the claim on March 17, 2017 on the ground that the period for filing the appeal expired, and then dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on April 4, 2017.

According to the above facts, there is no administrative appeal seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case. Thus, whether the period of filing a lawsuit is complied with should be determined at the time when the plaintiff received the written disposition of this case.

However, the Defendant received the instant disposition on May 17, 2016, and the instant lawsuit is unlawful because it is apparent that it was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the said lawsuit (it is unlawful as it was filed by the Plaintiff upon filing an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on August 17, 2016, to seek the cancellation of the instant disposition, even if the Plaintiff intended to seek the cancellation of the instant disposition, the said petition for adjudication was filed after the lapse of 90 days from May 17, 2016, the delivery date of the instant disposition). Therefore, the instant lawsuit was filed with the lapse of the filing period, and is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Song Byung-hun