2012Guhap9888 Revocation of revocation of revocation of subsidies to improve the employment environment of small and medium enterprises

A Stock Company

Head of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency

June 7, 2012

July 5, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On March 29, 2011, the Defendant revoked the disposition rejecting the payment of the employment improvement subsidy for small and medium enterprises against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a company that runs the automobile parts processing business, and is enforced by the Ministry of Employment and Labor

On January 6, 2010, the Employment Environment Improvement Plan for Small and Medium Enterprises was reported in accordance with the support program for the improvement of the employment environment for small and medium enterprises, and the completion of the employment environment improvement was reported in April 26, 2010.

B. After March 15, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for employment improvement support for small and medium enterprises with the Defendant on March 15, 201. The number of workers from October 2009 to December 12, 2009, which was three months immediately preceding the submission of the Plaintiff’s plan, and the number of workers from April 200 to June 6, 201, which was three months including the completion month,

A person shall be appointed.

C. On March 29, 2011, the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of support (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the increased number of monthly average workers is less than one person when comparing the monthly average workers of the month to which the date of completing the employment environment improvement belongs with the monthly average workers of the two months following the month to which the date of submitting the improvement plan belongs.

D. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for a ruling on the above disposition, but the said commission dismissed the application on March 13, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① Article 8(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Dec. 31, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree of the instant case”) which is the ground for the Defendant’s disposition, is unlawful and invalid since it exceeds the delegation scope of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Dec. 31, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree of the instant case”), which is the basis for the Defendant’s disposition, the instant provision is unlawful and invalid. ② The instant provision of the instant case is unlawful and invalid as it infringes on the principle of trust protection and property rights.

B. Relevant statutes

(1) The Minister of Employment and Labor may, pursuant to Article 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Dec. 31, 2010) Article 15 (1) of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Jan. 2, 2010) (1) The Minister of Employment and Labor and the Minister of Employment and Labor may, where a business owner eligible for preferential support for a type of business under Article 3 of the Special Act on Assistance to Small and Medium Enterprise Manpower in order to expand employment opportunities, install facilities or equipment necessary

(2) Matters necessary for requirements for support, such as the scope of recognition of facilities and equipment eligible for support under paragraph (1), amount of subsidies, application and payment of subsidies, etc. shall be determined and publicly announced by the Minister

Article 7 (Requirements for and Amount of Support) (1) The head of a local labor office shall pay a improvement subsidy to a business owner who meets all the following requirements for the payment of subsidies for improving the employment environment of small and medium enterprises (amended by the Ministry of Labor No. 2009-20 of May 14, 2009).

Article 8 (Calculation, etc. of Number of Workers)

(3) Where the number of monthly average workers under Article 7 (1) and (5) is less than one, it shall not be deemed that the number of workers increased.

C. Determination

1) On the other hand, Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case provides that a part of the cost and wage shall be subsidized in the event of an increase in employment. However, it is anticipated to specify the necessary matters, such as the requirements for support, the amount of subsidy, and the application and payment of subsidies, through the public notice of the Ministry of Labor, pursuant to Article 15(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case. It can be easily anticipated that the support will be provided only when there is an increase in employment exceeding a certain level in the interpretation of the statutes. Meanwhile, Article 7(1)2 of the instant payment provision provides that the monthly average workers of three months before and after the improvement of employment environment shall be the basis for the increased number of employees, and Article 8(3) provides that the number of increased employees shall be one or more. Therefore,

It is not considered to be beyond the delegation scope of the Enforcement Decree to ensure the effectiveness of the policy on subsidies to improve the employment environment of small enterprises.

2) On the other hand, according to the instant payment provision, the Plaintiff asserted that, if there were 14-14-20 workers for the three months immediately preceding the submission of the plan, but the number of workers for three months including the completion month is 20-20 to 20, the Plaintiff would receive support, and it would be unreasonable to compare the Plaintiff’s case. However, the Plaintiff’s case required as an example was based on a special situation where six workers increase at 10,000, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the standard for the payment provision of this case is inappropriate

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant provision infringes on the principle of trust protection and property rights, but the instant provision regulates the beneficial administrative act as a subsidy provision, and the instant provision is already enacted and implemented around January 6, 2010 when considering the fact that the Plaintiff had made a report on the improvement of the employment environment for small and medium enterprises, which could have easily anticipated the instant disposition of the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

4) Accordingly, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge shall be appointed from among the judges;

Judges Jeon Soo-tae

Judges Park Jong-dae