2012Nu8320 Revocation of disposition of site pay, etc. of employment improvement subsidies

A Stock Company

The head of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

Suwon District Court Decision 2011Guhap1144 Decided February 9, 2012

September 19, 2012

October 10, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition on August 2, 2011 to pay a site for the improvement subsidy for the employment environment for small and medium enterprises in 2010 and the disposition to restrict payment for one year (from August 1, 2011 to July 31, 201) against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is accepted as the reasons for the judgment of this case in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the next, the plaintiff is briefly

The plaintiff asserts that since new employees B, C, and D were employed on a regular basis after the completion date of the employment environment improvement due to the plaintiff's death, etc. and acquired the status of the four insured workers, the plaintiff did not falsely report the increased number of workers after the completion date of the employment environment improvement to the defendant.

However, it is reasonable to view that “worker” under Article 7(1)2 of the Notice of the Regulations on the Payment of Employment Improvement Subsidies for Small and Medium Enterprises refers to any person who is employed by a business owner and actually provides labor to the business owner, regardless of the name of a training worker, etc. In addition to the evidence evidence No. 20 and the witness D’s partial testimony (excluding the portion rejected in the rear) duly adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it can be recognized that new employee B, C, and D had already been employed by the Plaintiff before February 201, which is the month preceding the date on which the employment improvement was completed. The evidence of the first instance court, which was not adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff at the trial, including the witness at the trial, are collected and examined. Accordingly, it is difficult to reverse such recognition even if the new employee B, C, and D, constitute a worker affiliated with the Plaintiff without any reason, and thus, the allegation of the Plaintiff is no longer necessary.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.

The presiding judge, senior judge and senior judge

Judges Noh Jeong-il

Judges Jeong Jae-ok