Gender Communications Corporation, Inc.

The President of the Gwangju Regional Labor Administration

July 22, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on January 13, 2010, such as return of 7,490,320 won, additional collection of 27,851,600 won, and restriction on payment of new employment promotion grants (from January 23, 2009 to October 14, 2010) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 16, 2008, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of the production and service of educational content, software development and repair business, etc.

B. On November 1, 2008, the Plaintiff employed Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 4 (hereinafter referred to as “instant workers”) on January 2, 2009, respectively, as an employee engaging in the Plaintiff’s programming business. From January 23, 2009 to October 15, 2009, the Plaintiff received support from the Defendant for the total of KRW 7,490,320 for new employment promotion subsidy (hereinafter referred to as “instant subsidy”) on seven occasions, as indicated in the “Support Amount” column in the “BE”).

본문내 포함된 표 대상자 신 청 일 지원금 산정기간 지 급 일 지원금액(원) 추가징수액(원) 소외 1 2008. 12. 4. 2008. 11. 1. ~ 2008. 11. 30. 2009. 1. 23. 600,000 600,000 2009. 1. 6. 2008. 12. 1. ~ 2008. 12. 31. 2009. 1. 23. 600,000 600,000 2009. 2. 12. 2009. 1. 1. ~ 2009. 1. 31. 2009. 2. 17. 600,000 600,000 2009. 3. 11. 2009. 2. 1. ~ 2009. 2. 28. 2009. 3. 17. 600,000 600,000 2009. 4. 15. 2009. 3. 1. ~ 2009. 3. 31. 2009. 4. 20. 600,000 3,000,000 ？ 소 계 3,000,000 5,400,000 소외 4 2009. 7. 10. 2009. 1. 2. ~ 2009. 6. 30. 2009. 7. 29. 3,580,640 17,903,200 2009. 10. 12. 2009. 7. 1. ~ 2009. 9. 30. 2009. 10. 15. 909,680 4,548,400 ？ 소 계 4,490,320 22,451,600 합계 7,490,320 27,851,600

C. However, the Defendant, on January 13, 2010, issued a disposition of restricting the payment of incentives (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s receipt of the instant incentives, such as the said Table, as “The instant Table, by any false or other unlawful means, constitutes the “receiving of incentives” under Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act, on the grounds that the Plaintiff had been formally arranged by the Employment Security Office only after receiving an interview with the instant workers, and thereby, constituted “the receipt of incentives by a false or other unlawful means” under Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

If the employee of this case met all other payment requirements under the Employment Insurance Act, but is not allowed to receive new employment promotion incentives due to the lack of employment security offices prior to the interview, it is reasonable to inform the employee of the payment procedure for such incentives from the standpoint of the enterprise employing them, and it also conforms to the purpose of the payment system in order to reduce the burden of the company's personnel expenses. Thus, the defendant's each disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

① On October 2, 2008, Nonparty 1 found the Plaintiff Company’s office in order to spread Nonparty 2’s Nonparty 2, who was known to it, and upon Nonparty 2’s recommendation, visited the Plaintiff Company’s computer to apply for job-seeking registration by accessing the worknet (the Defendant’s employment security information network).

Then, on the 16th of the same month, Nonparty 1 visited the Plaintiff Company and conducted a job-seeking interview with Nonparty 3 chief, and Nonparty 3 explained to Nonparty 1 that, after confirming the matters of Nonparty 1’s application for job-seeking, Nonparty 1 cannot employ employees without the procedure of arranging the employment support center’s employment promotion subsidy due to the relationship that the Plaintiff Company is employing employees due to the difficulties in its management, etc., Nonparty 1 immediately applied for mediation to the Worknet using the Plaintiff Company’s computer.

The non-party 1 received a recommendation from the employment support center on the same day, and again received an interview from the plaintiff company on the 23th of the same month, and worked for the plaintiff company from November 1, 2008.

② On December 18, 2008, Nonparty 4 received contact from the Plaintiff and visited the Plaintiff Company, and visited the Plaintiff Company on December 18, 2008. During the interview, the interview officer of the Plaintiff Company explained the Plaintiff Company’s recruitment of a person eligible for the new employment promotion subsidy, and Nonparty 4 applied for mediation to the Plaintiff Company’s computer.

After being arranged by the employment support center on the same day, Nonparty 4 was interviewed by the Plaintiff company again on the 30th of the same month, and was promised to be employed if he becomes a recipient of the subsidy, and again applied for registration of job seeking to the Plaintiff company’s computer.

Since January 2, 2009, Nonparty 4 worked for the Plaintiff Company from January 2, 2009.

③ On December 2, 2008, before applying for the instant incentive against Nonparty 1 for the first time, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a business owner’s confirmation to the Defendant. According to this, the route for which the Plaintiff was employing Nonparty 1 is indicated as being employed after receiving an arrangement from the Employment Security Center upon the Plaintiff’s application for employment security upon interview on October 23, 2008.

In addition, on July 14, 2009, immediately after filing an application for the instant incentive against Nonparty 4, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a business owner’s confirmation to the Defendant. According to this, the route in which the Plaintiff hired Nonparty 4 is indicated that the Plaintiff was equally employed after receiving an arrangement from the Employment Security Center upon the Plaintiff’s application for the recruitment and interview on December 30, 2008.

④ On the other hand, the Defendant confirmed the Plaintiff’s fraudulent receipt of the instant incentive through an on-site investigation, etc., and requested the Plaintiff to give prior notice of the same administrative disposition as that of the instant disposition on December 7, 2009 and to present his opinion thereon.

Accordingly, on December 22, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted a written statement of opinion to the Defendant. After reviewing the written statement, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of examining the statement of opinion on January 5, 2010, and then issued each of the instant dispositions on January 13, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 2, 6, 7, 8, 11-1 through 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

However, under the ordinary conditions of the Employment Insurance Act, the system of incentives for new employment promotion under the Employment Insurance Act was introduced to promote the employment of the vulnerable class in employment by subsidizing incentives to the employers who employ the aged, disabled, long-term job seekers, women, young people, etc. who have difficulty in finding a job and have been unemployed for a certain period of time after filing an application for job-seeking. However, it is reasonable to view that this is merely an incidental aspect and its main purpose is to help the employment of the vulnerable class in employment and to activate the operation of the Employment Security Office.

Furthermore, according to the facts as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the instant workers as the workers who were actually determined to be employed by the Plaintiff company prior to the intermediation of the Employment Security Center, and thus, it is difficult to view them as the above vulnerable class in employment. As such, the payment of new employment promotion incentives to such employment form does not conform to the purport of the aforementioned system. In light of this, the Plaintiff employed the instant workers through interview only after hiding the actual employment process to the Defendant and after the intermediation of the Employment Security Center. In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s receipt of the instant incentives constitutes the provision of new employment promotion incentives by “any false or other unlawful means” as stipulated in Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act.

In addition, since there is no illegality in the calculation of the refund amount, additional collection amount, the period of restriction on payment, the prior procedure for the disposition, etc. under each of the dispositions of this case, each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Byung-hee (Presiding Judge)