Revocation, such as an order to promote employment, etc., 2018Guhap1214

A

The Administrator of Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency

September 13, 2018

October 11, 2018

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On June 27, 2017, the Defendant’s order to return the incentives for employment promotion, disposition of additional collection, and disposition of restriction on payment is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for an employment promotion incentive with the Defendant on August 1, 2016, Nov. 1, 2016, and February 7, 2017, for the payment of KRW 6750,00 (=2.50,000) from the Defendant on February 7, 2017, on the ground that he/she employed D, a person who completed the employment success program, as a recipient of the employment success scheme.

B. On February 23, 2016, the Defendant issued an order to return KRW 6750,000,000,000 for the promotion of unfair supply and demand, to additionally collect KRW 1350,500,000 based on the same illegal receipt, and nine months (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff received employment promotion subsidy by filing a false report as if the Plaintiff was employed after completing the employment promotion program (from March 4, 2016 to April 7, 2016) (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-4, Eul evidence 1-7, 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Summary of the main defense

The instant lawsuit is unlawful due to the lapse of the filing period.

B. Determination

According to Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a revocation suit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date when the existence of a disposition is known, and where a request for administrative appeal is possible, the period at the time when the request for administrative appeal is filed shall be counted from the date when the original written

Meanwhile, in order to calculate the period of filing a suit for revocation as of the date on which a written ruling is served, not at the disposal price, the request for an administrative appeal ought to be lawful. In cases where the request for an administrative appeal itself is unlawful, such as where a request for an administrative appeal is filed after the period of filing an administrative appeal expires, the period of filing a suit may not be calculated on the basis of the adjudication (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du1878

In full view of the evidence as seen earlier, evidence No. 23, evidence No. 24, and evidence No. 14, the Plaintiff received the instant disposition on July 6, 2017, and the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on January 4, 2018, 90 days after the receipt of the instant disposition, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim was an illegal claim filed in violation of Article 27(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act on April 24, 2018, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 14, 2018 after 90 days from the receipt of the instant disposition is apparent.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case was instituted after the expiration of the filing period, it is illegal and the defendant's main defense pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, senior judge and senior judge

Judge To call

Judges Preferential-hun