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, a stock company established for the purpose of environmental beauty and security services, entered into an entrustment contract with eight training institutions, such as the Korea Security Association, an incorporated association, etc. from 2012 to 2014, conducted workplace skill development training for 557 employees belonging thereto, and applied for subsidies for workplace skill development training expenses for the above training courses to the Defendant, and received KRW 174,943,801 as subsidies for workplace skill development training from the Defendant from June 8, 2012 to June 3, 2014.

B. On May 1, 2015, pursuant to Articles 55 and 56 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development Act”), the Defendant issued an order to refund subsidies of KRW 174,943,801, additional collection of KRW 174,943,801, and a disposition to restrict subsidies and loans for 360 days from May 1, 2015 to April 25, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not actually bear training costs and received training costs from workers and received subsidies by filing a false application as if he had paid training costs directly.

C. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on January 12, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff actually conducted workplace skill development training for 557 employees under his/her jurisdiction, applied to the Defendant for subsidization of training costs, and since the Defendant subsequently paid subsidies to the employees under his/her jurisdiction, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff received subsidies by fraud or other improper means.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff was provided with expenses by fraud or other improper means.