(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.12.10 2015구합275

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.12.10 2015구합275

고용장려지원금 부정수급에 대한 반환 등 처분취소

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff concluded a management consulting agreement with B (hereinafter “instant company”) on May 2, 2013 regarding government subsidies as a corporation operating a taxi passenger transport business.

B. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for subsidies for extension of employment of the aged (hereinafter “the instant application”) (hereinafter “instant subsidies”) (hereinafter “the instant application”), and received subsidies totaling KRW 73,560,000 from the Defendant during the period from the quarter of April to the third quarter of March 2013.

C. After examining whether the Plaintiff’s improper receipt of subsidies was granted, the Defendant confirmed the fact that he falsely prepared and submitted the rules of employment, which was implemented on July 1, 2009, to the effect that the retirement age was changed to 60 years of age in order to receive subsidies even though there was no fact that the existing retirement age was extended to 56 years of age or more.

On November 10, 2014, the Defendant issued an order to return full subsidies of KRW 73,560,000 (hereinafter “instant order to return”) and a disposition to additionally collect KRW 147,120,000 equivalent to twice the subsidies (hereinafter “instant order to return”), along with a disposition to restrict payment, including subsidies, from November 7, 2014 to November 6, 2015, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff for additional collection of KRW 147,120,00 (hereinafter “instant order to return”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1, 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), 18 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff knew of the subsidy system for extension of employment of the elderly from the company of this case, and did not intend to unlawfully receive the subsidy because it had been entrusted exclusively to the above company, and the plaintiff also belongs to the employees of the company of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's failure to perform his duties cannot be caused.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2015.12.10 2015구합268

-대전지방법원 2017.07.13 2016구단100647

-부산고등법원 2016.7.13. 선고 2015누24383 판결

-부산지방법원 2015.07.02 2015노1131

-부산지방법원 2015.8.20. 선고 2015구합20764 판결