Revocation, such as an order to return illegally received amount, etc., 201Guhap7183

A Stock Company

The head of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

April 9, 2014

April 23, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

On March 22, 2011, the Defendant’s course of education for one year for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

3. A disposition to restrict payment from 29. to March 28, 2009 and an order to return a subsidy of KRW 46,638,470 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 9, 2007 to November 10, 2007, the Plaintiff provided professional and co-education for workers in the occupational group in the Plaintiff’s Ansan plant (hereinafter “instant training course”) to improve his/her employees’ work ability.

B. On March 22, 2011, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to return the illegally received amount of KRW 67,327 based on Article 35 of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter the same) and Article 56 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21015, Sept. 18, 2008; 201, the Defendant collected additionally the amount of KRW 201,981, which was the subsidies received by unlawful means, for one year from the date of such unlawful receipt (limited period: March 29, 2008 to March 28, 2009); and on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s return of KRW 46,327,481, which was declared unconstitutional; 201,306,4716, etc. of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21015, Mar. 28, 2016).

D. On October 21, 2013, the Defendant revoked the instant disposition ex officio.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 10, 12 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

On the other hand, if an administrative disposition is revoked ex officio, the disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists, and a lawsuit seeking revocation against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 20045317, Sept. 28, 2006). As seen in the background of the above disposition, as seen above, the defendant revoked the disposition of this case while the lawsuit of this case is pending, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed, and as long as the lawsuit of this case is dismissed by ex officio revocation of the disposition of this case, the lawsuit of this case shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, senior judge and senior secretary general

Judges Kim Gung-dong

The chief of judge;

1) As of March 22, 2011, the Defendant issued an order to return KRW 60,581,686 as of March 22, 201, but corrected the amount of KRW 46,638,470 on May 27, 201.