2011. Revocation of revocation of Additional Collection

A

The Administrator of the Gyeonggi Local Labor Agency;

May 25, 2011

June 22, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s order to return a new employment promotion subsidy and disposition to additionally collect the subsidy from the Plaintiff on March 12, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 1, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for additional collection of KRW 2,160,000 (in total, KRW 7,200,000) for the payment of KRW 2,00,000 for 3 months from September 2, 2009 to November 1 of the same year on the ground that he/she newly employed B, a long-term job seeker, who is one of his/her place of business, as an intermediary for work. On December 1, 2009, the Defendant paid KRW 2,160,00 (in total, KRW 7,000,000) to the Plaintiff on December 17, 2009, for additional collection of KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, evidence 3-1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On August 8, 2009, the Plaintiff requested the job seeker to arrange through the Worknet, which is a job-seeking site of the employment security office, etc., and the notice of mediation was to conduct an interview on August 24, 2009 and to employ B by holding a direct contact with B who requested a job to find a job on the Worknet at the latest. However, after the reversal of the employment intention on the following day, B again made a job seeking inquiry to the Plaintiff on the end of the same month, and on September 1, 2009, the Plaintiff hired B on September 2, 2009 upon receipt of the employment security office’s notice of good offices from the employment security office, and the Plaintiff’s provision of information constitutes good offices, and the instant disposition was unlawful since the Plaintiff did not receive a subsidy due to unlawful acts.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The new employment promotion incentive system under the Employment Insurance Act is designed to prevent job seekers and job offerers from abusing the above system for the purpose of receiving only the incentives, and such arrangement must be practically conducted, since it is intended to prevent job seekers and job offerers from abusing the above system for the purpose of receiving only the incentives, in case where the aged, disabled persons, long-term job seekers, women, youths, etc. who have difficulties in finding employment under the ordinary conditions of the Employment Insurance Act are unemployed for a certain period of time or longer.

However, even according to the plaintiff's argument, the plaintiff requested the Worknet to arrange the job seeker B by directly contact the job seeker B without the employment security office's referral act, and interview B. According to each of the evidence Nos. 1, 3-4, 7, and 8, B was decided to be employed on August 24, 2009 through the plaintiff's interview with respect to the questions of the defendant's staff related to the disposition of this case, and the plaintiff visited the plaintiff's workplace on September 1, 2009, and stated that the plaintiff visited the plaintiff's workplace. The plaintiff requested the job security office to arrange the plaintiff's workplace by accessing the Worknet on September 1, 2009 and requested the plaintiff to arrange the plaintiff and the head of the Suwon Employment Center D to arrange the employment of the plaintiff on the same day, and the plaintiff, at the time of the plaintiff's request for the employment security office, can be acknowledged as having received the above "the employment confirmation process" through the "Defendant No. 290 days" and the "Defendant No.29.

Therefore, the instant disposition that ordered the Plaintiff to return the incentives that the Defendant received by unlawful acts in accordance with the relevant statutes and to additionally collect the amount equivalent to the amount of the incentives is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Kim Jong-sik

Judges Lee Jin-young

Judges Yellow-gu

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.