1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the court shall dismiss “2010.....” No. 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “2015....”; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, the court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article

2. The addition;

A. The plaintiff, for the sake of procedural convenience, received the employment incentive application documents from each regional association and applied for the employment incentive on behalf of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is not a "business owner" under Article 30 (1) of the Employment Promotion of Disabled Persons Act, the defendant asserts that the disposition of this case was unlawful since the defendant made the disposition of this case against the plaintiff, who is not a regional association, for the purpose of recovering the employment incentive which was paid by mistake or illegal receipt of employment incentive.

Considering the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff constitutes a “business owner” under Article 30(1) of the Employment Promotion Act of Disabled Persons Act, and it is clear that the Plaintiff is the “person who received the employment incentive” under Article 31(1) of the same Act, taking into account the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 6, 9 (including the paper numbers), and 10 and the purport of the entire arguments

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

① In applying for the employment incentive for the Defendant from the first half of 2011 to the second half of 2013, the Plaintiff only prepared and submitted a “application for the payment of the employment incentive for disabled persons” each time, and did not separately prepare and submit an application for payment for each regional federation.

As the plaintiff submitted the above application for payment, it is argued that there was a separate application of each regional franchise, but the above application for payment is the number of the full-time workers, the number of covered workers, and the number of disabled workers, including each regional franchise.