1. On May 1, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to restrict the payment of subsidies, to return subsidies, and to additionally collect such subsidies from the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for an employment promotion subsidy under the Employment Insurance Act with the Defendant for an employment promotion subsidy of KRW 8,850,000 (hereinafter “instant employment promotion subsidy”) on the grounds that the Plaintiff was established on February 25, 2015 and engaged in cosmetics wholesale and retail business, and was employed by B as a worker after having completed his/her employment success certificate on September 5, 2016.

B. On May 1, 2019, the Defendant issued a decision to restrict the payment of employment promotion subsidy from May 1, 2019 to January 25, 2020 on the ground that “the Defendant received the employment promotion subsidy by filing a false report on the acquisition or loss of qualification for a senior employment, or the insured” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”). The Defendant issued a decision to additionally collect KRW 17,700,000 from May 1, 2019 to January 25, 2020.

C. On June 18, 2019, the Plaintiff received the instant disposition and filed the instant lawsuit on September 11, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 12, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s assertion B was merely a short-term accident before being employed by the Plaintiff and did not receive wages. As such, the Plaintiff’s employment of the Plaintiff on September 5, 2016 constitutes a new employment.

(hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Chapter 1”). The Plaintiff and B responded that they did not provide pre-employment work in a survey document related to the application for employment promotion subsidy is limited to the same context, and thus it is difficult to regard it as false report. This is irrelevant to the payment of the employment promotion subsidy.

(hereinafter “Plaintiff’s second chapter”). Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on a different premise should be revoked as unlawful.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff’s first proposal constitutes a worker is in substance regardless of the form of contract.