Cases
2012Guhap2379, disposition for maintaining employment, etc.
Plaintiff
A Stock Company
Defendant
The Director General of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office
Conclusion of Pleadings
September 20, 2012
Imposition of Judgment
October 25, 2012
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim
The Defendant’s disposition of restricting the payment of various subsidies and grants made against the Plaintiff on July 4, 201 and disposition of collecting KRW 6,623,007, which was made against the Plaintiff on March 12, 2012, shall be revoked (it shall be corrected as above in light of the evidence No. 2, No. 2, No. 623, and No. 17, Oct. 17, 201, respectively, of the claims stated in the written complaint).
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company whose purpose is to manufacture automobile parts and wholesale and retail business. After filing a report on the plan for employment maintenance (suspension of business), the Plaintiff was supported by the employment maintenance support payment for B from April 1, 2009 to June 2009 for three times from June 11, 2009 to July 22, 2009 ( = 65,743 won for April 65, 2009 + 67,602 won for 65,743 won for 209 + 65,743 won for 67,602 won for 209).
B. On July 4, 2011, the Defendant issued an order to return KRW 1,989,088 (temporary suspension) to the Plaintiff, 9,945,440 ( = 1,989,088 won x 5) equivalent to five times the amount of the unlawful payment, and a disposition to restrict payment for one year (from June 11, 2009 to July 21, 201) of various subsidies, grants, etc. under the Employment Insurance Act, on the ground that (i) a person subject to the above employment maintenance (temporary suspension) was hiding his/her overseas business trip to Australia during the period of temporary suspension, and (ii) a person who unlawfully received the employment maintenance support payment (from June 11, 201 to July 21, 2010).
C. On March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on each of the dispositions stated in the aforementioned Paragraph, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission revoked the part in excess of (65,743 won per April 65,743 x 2 times) + (67,602 won per April 67,602 x 3 times) + (65,743 won per June 6, 2012) and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remaining claims.
D. According to the above ruling on March 12, 2012, the Defendant reduced only the additionally collected amount among the dispositions listed in the above sub-paragraph (b) and subsequently ordered the Plaintiff to return the unlawful amount of subsidies for retaining employees and issued an additional collection of KRW 6,623,07 (two to five times the unlawful amount of subsidies).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion
B is only a personal reason for Australia and not an overseas business trip for the Plaintiff Company. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not receive the employment maintenance support payment by fraud or other improper means.
B. Relevant legislation
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
In light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the aforementioned evidence and the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 5 of this paragraph, it is reasonable to view that B was on duty to make a business trip to Australia for the Plaintiff Company from April 1, 2009 to October 1, 2009, which is the period of employment maintenance (suspension) employment. The results of the entries in subparagraphs 4 to 11 of this Article, the testimony of the witness C, and the fact-finding on the Korea Customs Service of this court are insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and there is no other evidence to reverse it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
① On November 18, 2010, the Plaintiff’s representative director D’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s, and C, who had worked since the Plaintiff’s establishment, appeared in the business support division of the Jungcheon Branch of the Central Labor Agency, and stated that B was an overseas business trip to ascertain whether B could export products by conducting a market investigation in Australia and finding a new customer, and that B was liable for the Plaintiff’s aviation fees and sojourn expenses.
② The Plaintiff’s payment of the Plaintiff’s airline fee and sojourn expense to B is confirmed through the financial transaction details of the Plaintiff’s account.
③ According to the result of the fact-finding conducted by the court on the Korea Customs Service, the plaintiff is confirmed to have no actual export and import performance with Australia. However, in light of the statement made by C that the business trip was to conduct a market investigation in Australia which had not been previously traded and to secure new customers, the above fact-finding result does not interfere with recognizing that the business trip in Australia was an overseas business trip for the plaintiff.
④ In this court, C testified to the effect that the above statement of opinion dated November 18, 2010 was false and true to the effect that E was staying in Australia for personal purposes. However, C did not provide any explanation to the effect that the reason why he/she made a false statement or the reason why he/she changed his/her statement. The above statement made on November 18, 2010 is very specific and consistent and consistent, and it is difficult to view it as false in light of the fact that it conforms to the details of the Plaintiff’s financial transaction.
⑤ The Plaintiff’s representative director D also stated that the Plaintiff’s statement on November 1, 2010 and 30, stating that “I am aware of whether B had sold at the time of leaving the Republic of Korea to Australia.”
6. From April 6, 2009 to September 18, 2009, the fact that the English curriculum has been completed in the English language institute in Australia has not been verified. However, such fact does not seem to be compatible with the fact that B conducted a market investigation in Australia and found a new customer.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges
The presiding judge, judges and vice-ranking
Judges Kim Young-young
Judges Kim Gin-jin
Attached Form
A person shall be appointed.
A person shall be appointed.
A person shall be appointed.