beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s measures to return the employment promotion subsidy of KRW 4,500,000 to the Plaintiff on September 8, 2017, and KRW 9,00,000.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. Nonparty B passed the Certified Public Labor Attorney Examination on November 2015, and the same year from April 11, 2016
6. Until July 30, 2016, after completing on-the-job training at C’s office operated by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff completed the registration of commencement of certified public labor attorney’s duties.
B. Meanwhile, during the period from May 16, 2016 to November 15, 2016, the Plaintiff received KRW 4,500,000 from the Defendant as the subsidies for employment promotion during the period from May 16, 2016 to November 15, 2016.
C. On September 8, 2017, the Defendant commenced an investigation with respect to the Plaintiff and B on the ground that the Plaintiff’s fraudulent receipt of the employment promotion subsidy was doubtful, and on the grounds that “the Plaintiff was confirmed to be not the unemployed at the time of employment by providing the work before May 16, 2016, the date of employment,” the Defendant returned the employment promotion subsidy of KRW 4,500,000 that the Plaintiff received, and issued a disposition to additionally collect KRW 9,00,000.
(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【No dispute exists with the ground of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5-1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The summary of the party’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with B on May 16, 2016, and hired B as a worker, and the Plaintiff conducted practical training training for B until May 15, 2016. As such, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff had already been employed as a worker B before May 16, 2016 is unlawful. (2) Defendant B participated in the one-time stage of employment failure, during the period from April 14, 2016 to May 15, 2016, and met the requirements for receiving employment promotion subsidies from May 16, 2016.
The Plaintiff abused this point and actually employed B as an employee from April 11, 2016 in the form of on-the-job training. However, as from May 16, 2016, the Plaintiff prepared a false labor contract and applied for employment promotion subsidy to the Defendant by unlawful means.