1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was designated as a prospective social enterprise by Ulsan Metropolitan City on March 2, 2012 as a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and delivering urban communities, and was certified as a social enterprise by the Ministry of Employment and Labor on May 15, 2014.

B. On May 30, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement to support the job creation of a prospective social enterprise with the content that “six workers participating in the voluntary urban development project (including at least 50% of the disadvantaged class) shall be employed by the Plaintiff with the approval of the Defendant from June 1, 2012 to May 31, 2013.” The Defendant entered into an agreement to support the job creation of a prospective social enterprise with the content that “the aforementioned participating workers shall be subsidized as subsidies (hereinafter “the instant subsidies”).” out of the personnel expenses and social insurance premiums for the said participating workers.

On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a new agreement with the Defendant to set the support period from June 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014. On May 28, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a new agreement with the Defendant to set the support period from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant support agreement”).

C. On January 20, 2015, A, working for the Plaintiff Company, filed a petition with the Defendant to the effect that “A, during his/her working for the Plaintiff Company, worked eight hours a day at a company B, other than the Plaintiff Company, for which he/she was working for the Plaintiff Company, provided false documents to the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff denied the subsidies, which was investigated in detail and taken measures, such as the recovery of unlawful subsidies.”

Based on its own investigation and investigation by the investigation agency, the defendant determined that Gap and Eul who worked for the plaintiff company as a member of the plaintiff company was receiving subsidies by submitting a false work status register and work card to the defendant as if the plaintiff worked only for the plaintiff company even though they concurrently for food materials delivery services of the plaintiff company Eul, and that the plaintiff was receiving subsidies from the plaintiff on February 4, 2016.