1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff and the Defendant-related Plaintiff were established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling food, and the Defendant served as the Plaintiff’s representative director from February 13, 2008 to November 22, 2010.

The Plaintiff received the Plaintiff’s employment maintenance support payment on August 2009, January 2, 2010, and August 2010, and received KRW 84,659,880 in total from September 17, 2009 to October 27, 2010 pursuant to Article 19(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, which was in force at the time.

On October 20, 2011, the Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office of the Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office of Apr. 18, 201 reported that the Plaintiff received employment maintenance support payment on October 20, 201 and investigated the notification that the Plaintiff was unlawfully supplied employment maintenance support payment, and reported that a dietitian belonging to the Plaintiff was falsely temporarily suspended even after the Plaintiff had worked normally during the period of suspension reported.

On April 18, 2012, Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office issued an order to return the illegally received amount of KRW 84,659,880 to the Plaintiff and issued an additional collection of KRW 84,659,880 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the initial disposition”).

On May 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for installment payment of KRW 169,319,760 in total, the amount of illegal receipt and additional collection according to the initial disposition, and paid in full on November 27, 2013.

Article 35(2) of the Employment Insurance Act, which was enforced at the time of such unlawful act by the Plaintiff, and Article 78(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, the Gwangju Regional Labor Office rendered a disposition to additionally collect twice the amount of KRW 84,659,80 that was received by false or other unlawful means. However, it was erroneous that the sum of the amount of return orders and the additional collection would be double the amount of illegal receipt and thus additionally collect the same amount as the amount of illegal receipt.