1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a restaurant business operator who runs a restaurant business in the name of “C” in the racing city B (hereinafter “C”).

On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff opened the instant place of business, and closed the business on January 28, 2019.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for employment promotion subsidy under the Employment Insurance Act with the Defendant on the ground that he/she was employed as a worker from December 28, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant person eligible for support”), and the following documents are indicated as “employment promotion subsidy” under subparagraph 1 (a) and subparagraph 2 (a). However, according to the written application (Evidence 1), the Plaintiff appears to have filed an application for employment promotion subsidy under Article 26(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 30296, Dec. 31, 2019; hereinafter the same), and the term “employment promotion subsidy” was amended by Presidential Decree No. 27738, Dec. 30, 2016.

Therefore, the "employment promotion subsidy" is referred to as the "employment promotion subsidy".

A total of 7.8 million won (the employment period subject to payment: the period from December 28, 2016 to December 27, 2017; hereinafter “instant employment promotion subsidy”) was paid. The instant person eligible for support is a person who is in the relationship of affinity by marriage in the second degree as the Plaintiff’s wife.

The amount of support for the employment period subject to the re-payment on April 14, 2017, from March 28, 2016 to March 27, 2017; KRW 1,950,000 on March 27, 2017 to June 27, 2017; KRW 3,950,00 on March 28, 2017 to June 27, 2017; and 1,950,000 on June 1, 201 to June 28, 2017 to September 28, 2017; KRW 1,950,000 on April 28, 201 to September 27, 2017; and KRW 1,950 on January 27, 2018 to KRW 1,000 on January 28, 2018; and

C. On May 2, 2019, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that “the Plaintiff was unlawfully paid the instant employment promotion fund by employing the instant person eligible for support who is in the second degree of affinity relationship; (b)” Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act; (c) Article 56 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act; and (d)