2015Nu41687 Revocation of illegally receiving employment improvement subsidies for small and medium enterprises

person

E. E. A. H.T.T.T.T.

Appellants

The Deputy Director General of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Guhap2762 Decided April 9, 2015

March 30, 2016

May 11, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, and the costs of incidental appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, respectively.

3. On December 31, 2013, the order of the first instance court was corrected to December 31, 2013.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s order to return KRW 52,00,000 to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2013, (1) the order to return the employment improvement subsidy for small and medium enterprises, (2) the additional collection of KRW 104,008,00, and (3) the disposition to restrict the payment of various subsidies and incentives for one year (from December 31, 2013 to December 30, 2014).

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim concerning that part shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff regarding the order to return the subsidies for improving the employment environment of small and medium enterprises of KRW 52,004,00 shall be revoked. The Defendant’s order to return the said subsidies issued on December 31, 2013 shall be revoked

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the court used “three-dimensionals of January 6, 2014” in the first instance judgment as “12, 31.12”; and (b) the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to that of the first instance judgment except for the addition of the following, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary Judgment】

Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 78(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act provide that the aforementioned disposition shall not be deemed to have exceeded the scope of discretionary authority since it was a binding act that was issued pursuant to Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act and that there is no room for discretion. Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that where a person who received assistance from a project, such as employment stability, is ordered to return the subsidized amount by fraud or other improper means, an amount not exceeding five times the paid amount may be collected pursuant to the criteria prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. The language and content of the provision provides for the criteria for additional collection in Article 78 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, etc. As such, the determination of the criteria for imposing additional collection in accordance with the above provision is merely a determination of the criteria for imposing sanctions, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the instant disposition constitutes a discretionary act that goes beyond the scope of the Plaintiff’s discretionary authority’s application and the Plaintiff’s application for additional collection based on the following evidence.

2. Conclusion

Since the part concerning the disposition of additional collection among the plaintiff's claims is well-grounded, the part concerning the order of return shall be accepted, and the part concerning the order of additional collection shall be dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in that it is without merit. Therefore, the defendant's appeal and incidental appeal of the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit. The " January 6, 2014" of the judgment of the court of first instance is a clerical error as of December 31, 2013. Thus, the above part is corrected to correct it.

Mobilization by the presiding judge

Judges Yoon Jong-dae

Judge Lee Jae-soo

1) As to the above restriction on payment, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not appeal, the court of this court.

are not included in the scope of adjudication.

2) According to the implementation guidelines in 2014, in principle, where an employer commences the improvement of employment environment before submitting the improvement plan, the subject to support.

preparation within three months to promote the improvement of employment environment, such as building design, construction approval, etc., even though excluded;

The reason for the additional collection disposition in this case was determined in determining the possibility of criticism of the plaintiff's act even if there is a reason for the disposition in this case

It is necessary to consider the amendment purpose, etc. of the above relevant items.