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 is a person engaged in printing business under the trade name “C” in Pakistan-si.

B. On August 30, 2010, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a report on a plan to improve the employment environment of small and medium enterprises to the effect that “to newly construct a dormitory at a workplace and improve the employment environment”, and the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s above plan on October 12, 2010.

C. On July 29, 2011, the Plaintiff completed new construction of a dormitory, and on October 11, 201, applied for a subsidy for improving the employment environment of small and medium enterprises (hereinafter “subsidies”) to the Defendant. After approval of the review, the Defendant paid KRW 51,616,00 to the Plaintiff on November 28, 201.

According to the Ministry of Labor’s announcement (Article 2009-93), in order to apply for an employment improvement subsidy, the average number of workers of the month to which the completion date of the employment improvement belongs and the following two months (hereinafter “number of workers after improvement”) shall exceed the average monthly number of workers (hereinafter “number of workers before improvement”) for the three months immediately preceding the month in which the improvement plan is submitted (i.e., the number of workers after improvement should be increased by more than one employee before improvement). In the case of the plaintiff, three workers before improvement (the average monthly number of workers in May, 201, June and July) were three.

On the other hand, when the plaintiff applied for subsidies to the defendant, the number of workers was 5.33 after the improvement stated in the application by the plaintiff.

E. On August 29, 2013, the Defendant received information from the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had employed false workers in order to receive subsidies.

F. On February 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) determined that the Plaintiff’s place of business actually did not meet the requirements for subsidies to less than one increased number of employees; and (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff received subsidies by fraud or other improper means, Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 78 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff received subsidies by fraud or other improper means.