2010Guhap3987 Revocation of the illegal receipt of new employment promotion subsidy, etc.

A Stock Company

The Administrator of the Daegu Regional Labor Office North Korea Site

November 2, 2011

December 7, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s order to return the amount of the new employment promotion subsidy granted to the Plaintiff on December 17, 2009, to additionally collect the amount of the subsidy, and the order to restrict the payment of new employment promotion subsidy from July 18, 2007 to April 3, 2009, and to return KRW 34,834,340 during the period of restriction on the payment, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (the previous trade name was changed from “B” to the present trade name on September 30, 2008) applied for new employment promotion grants (hereinafter “subsidies”) on the grounds that he/she newly employed C, D, and E on March 5, 2007 and received a total of KRW 17,922,580 for the period from July 18, 2007 to April 4, 2008.

B. On December 17, 2009, the Defendant issued an order to return the illegally received amount of KRW 17,922,580, additional collection of KRW 17,922,580, additional collection of KRW 17,922,580, and additional collection of KRW 34,343,340, and KRW 340 (hereinafter referred to as “instant order”) pursuant to Article 35 of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Employment Insurance Act”), on the ground that the Defendant received incentives by falsely preparing documents as if the period of unemployment was met, while engaging in the business of the Internet game brokerage at the Plaintiff’s establishment from March 5, 2007 to March 3, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-1 to 13, and Eul evidence 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

A. C, E, and D merely engaged in game money and items transaction while enjoying a hobby, and thus it cannot be deemed that they engaged in the Internet game brokerage business. Moreover, as C, etc. engaged in transactions such as game money only until November 29, 2006 and discontinued before filing an application for jobs on December 4, 2006, the period of unemployment satisfying the requirements for granting incentives. Even if C, etc. failed to meet the unemployment period, the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact, and thus, did not receive incentives by fraud or other improper means.

B. The instant disposition is not only illegal receipt but also additional collection, and also orders the return of the bounty paid during the period of restriction on payment. As such, the Plaintiff violated the principle of proportionality by excessive excessive restriction.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2. A

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 5, 6, 9 through 11, 23-1, 23-2, the notice in the name of the Plaintiff Company was posted on the Internet homepage 47 military units for a period from December 28, 2006 to March 3, 2007. The above notice was posted to C as the head of the Plaintiff Company’s business division; C’s e-mail address, personal telephone number (for all employees of the Plaintiff Company to raise personal business performance, each individual telephone number was stated on 20-1, 2006 to 20-1, 207, 30-7, 20-7, 20-7, 20-7, 20-7, 20-7, 20-7, 20-7, 20-7, 30-7, 20-7, 20-7, 20-7, 20-7.

According to the above facts, C, E, and D appears to have been employed before March 5, 2007 by the Plaintiff company and had been employed as a business employee, and contrary thereto, it is difficult to believe that each provision in the evidence Nos. 12 and 13 in the evidence Nos. 12 and 13 is inconsistent with the above facts. In the end, the Plaintiff received the incentive by stating the job date differently from the actual ones even though C, etc. does not meet the unemployment period (three months) under the requirement for payment of the incentive. This constitutes a case where the Plaintiff received the incentive by false or other unlawful means, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2.B.

As seen earlier, insofar as the Plaintiff entered the job of C, etc. differently from the fact and received the bounty by false or other unlawful means, it is difficult to view that the additional collection of the same amount as the amount of illegal receipt under Article 35(2) of the former Employment Insurance Act is excessively excessive to the Plaintiff and thus, in violation of the principle of proportionality. In light of the language and form of Article 56(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the order to return the amount of illegal receipt, the order to restrict payment, and the order to return the bounty paid within the restriction period for one year from the date of receiving the bounty, there is no room to discuss deviation

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and judicial police officer

Judges Civil Service Bureau

Judges Kim Yong-nam

A person shall be appointed.