beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s disposition suspending the business of six months and the disposition withdrawing the subsidy granted to the Plaintiff on September 27, 2013 shall be revoked.
2...
Reasons
Basic facts are: (a) around July 2005, the Plaintiff established “C” (hereinafter referred to as “instant facilities”) which is a communal home establishment at the 3rd floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangnam-gu; (b) established D (hereinafter referred to as “instant corporation”) on June 23, 2006; (c) operated a communal home establishment at the 5th floor including the instant facilities.
The facility of this case has been supported by the personnel expenses of two workers as government subsidies since 2007 and operating expenses of KRW 230,000 per month by the plaintiff and one living teacher as an employee.
In operating the instant facility, the Plaintiff was investigated by the Seoul Gangnam Police Station on charges of violating the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Subsidy Act”), which provided a false subsidy of KRW 10,321,060 in total on seven occasions from April 201 to March 2012. The head of the Seoul Gangnam Police Station sent the Plaintiff to the Seoul Southern Northern District Prosecutors’ Office on August 19, 201, and notified the Defendant of the fact on August 19, 2013.
On September 27, 2013, the Defendant received the notification and conducted an on-site inspection, etc., and received subsidies from the Plaintiff by fraud or other improper means, and accordingly, issued a disposition suspending business operations for six months (from October 16, 2013 to April 25, 2014) and recovering KRW 10,321,060.
(hereinafter referred to as “each disposition of this case”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 13, Eul evidence 13-5, Eul evidence 1-7, Eul evidence 7, and the overall purport of each disposition of this case as to the validity of each disposition of this case, the plaintiff’s assertion of the validity of each disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, the intensity of work is strong and the job environment is inferior, etc., so the plaintiff could not timely report the details of the replacement of a living teacher.
E has actually worked in the instant facility from April 201 to March 2012, but has failed to work permanently.