1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s disposition to recover the creative and business start-up promotion allowances against the selected parties B on November 20, 2014.

1. On November 20, 2014, the Defendant rendered a redemption disposition against each of the allowances of KRW 2 million paid to the Plaintiffs on the ground that the Defendant received false applications for creative or business start-up promotion allowances, even though the Plaintiff’s designated parties, the appointed parties, B, and D actually worked as an intern from the internship-run enterprise, and received false applications for creative or start-up promotion allowances (the instant dispositions are as follows).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in each subparagraph of sub-paragraphs 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s claim among the instant lawsuits

A. According to subparagraph 1-2 and subparagraph 2-1 of subparagraph 1-2 of Article 2-2, the defendant issued a disposition to recover the creative position and start-up promotion allowance to the Selection B on November 20, 2014, and the Selection B received the above disposition on December 2, 2014. Nevertheless, the Selection B filed an application with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for a ruling seeking the cancellation of the disposition in this case on April 24, 2015 after 90 days from the date of receipt of the disposition. The Central Administrative Appeals Commission made a decision to dismiss the petition on July 14, 2015, on the ground that the request by the Selection B was filed at the expiration of 90 days from the date of receipt of the disposition, and the lawsuit in this case by the Selection B was unlawful since it did not comply with the period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the disposition without undergoing a legitimate administrative appeal.

B. On December 1, 2014, the Defendant filed an administrative appeal on April 24, 2015, which had passed 90 days after the Appointor received the instant disposition, and accordingly, asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful on the basis of the lapse of the filing period. However, according to the purport of the written evidence No. 2-2 and the entire pleadings, the Defendant served the instant disposition on the domicile of the original Appointor as the resident registration address, and returned it.