2015Guhap20764 Return of subsidies for extension of employment of elderly people and revocation of disposition of additional collection, etc.

A Stock Company

The Commissioner of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office;

July 16, 2015

August 20, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On December 31, 2014, the defendant revoked the return of the extension subsidy for employment of the aged and the disposition of additional collection against the plaintiff, and the disposition of restricting the payment of the extended principal for employment of the aged.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff ordinarily engaged in passenger transport business (i.e., the Plaintiff’s retirement age under the Rules of Employment was extended from 57 to 60 years of age as of January 1, 2009) and the Rules of Employment (No. 2: the Rules of Employment (No. 18 subparag. 1) dated January 1, 2006 provides that the retirement age of employees shall be 57 years of age; ii) dated January 1, 2009 (No. 3: the retirement age of employees No. 19 subparag. 1: the end of the month in which he/she becomes 60 years of age; iii) that the Defendant had already received the Defendant’s retirement age from 20 to 30 years of age 60,000 (the total retirement age of the Defendant was extended from 20 to 30,07 years of age ; iv. 60, 2013).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of the fact that Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 13041, Jan. 20, 2015; Act No. 13041; hereinafter referred to as the “former Employment Security Examination Act”) provides that the payment of subsidies for extension of employment of the elderly was made by fraud or other improper means, “the payment of subsidies may be restricted, or the amount of subsidies received by false or other unlawful means may be returned,” the instant disposition for additional collection and restriction on payment is a discretionary act. The instant disposition for additional collection and restriction on payment is a discretionary act. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s management replacement or management negligence of the worker, etc. failed to properly verify the rules of employment for the year 2006, the disposition for additional collection and collection and restriction on payment between 12 and 12 months of the payment amount is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective statements and arguments of No. 8, No. 5, No. 7, and No. 8, No. 5, No. 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

① On May 21, 2015, B, a financial director of the Plaintiff, was charged with the instant case, and on May 21, 2015, from Busan District Court (No. 2014 high group8974) to the Defendant (B) is a person who actually operates the said company, and D is a person who provides corporate management consulting, application agency, etc. for various national subsidies under the name of "F" in Busan East E-gu 602, and G is employed by D. In order to promote employment of the aged who are difficult to start employment or change their occupation, the Defendant was granted a certain amount of subsidies, i.e., subsidies for extension of employment of the aged., 200 years from 10 to 20 years old. The Defendant was granted the above subsidies to the Plaintiff 15 years old, 20 years old, 10 years old, 30 years old, 10 years old, 20 years old, 20 years old, 16 years old, 30 years old, 19.

② 위 확정판결의 내용에다가 D이 수사기관에서 '자신이 2006, 1. 1.자 취업규칙을 작성해서 이를 B에게 건넸고, B으로부터 근로자 대표와 사용자 대표의 도장이 날인된 2006. 1. 1.자 취업규칙을 받아서 이를 이 사건 지원금 신청시 피고에게 제출하였으며, 원고로부터 지급된 보조금의 20%를 수령하였다.'고 진술한 점 등을 보태어 보면, 원고는 이 사건 지원금을 지급받기 위해 2006. 1. 1.자 취업규칙을 허위로 작성한 것으로 판단된다.

③ As such, Article 56(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25645, Sept. 30, 2014) provides that the payment of various subsidies for employment security activities shall be restricted for 12 months if the amount received by fraud or other improper means is at least KRW 10,000,000. Article 78(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the payment of various subsidies for employment security activities shall be limited for 12 months. Article 78(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act provides that “Any person who received or intends to receive the instant subsidies by fraud or other improper means during the preceding five years before

In full view of the fact that there is no frequency of receipt of a restriction on payment or an order to return by the Minister of Employment and Labor, “two times the amount received by false or other unlawful means” is additionally collected, and that the government’s use of the subsidy system to take measures necessary for employment stability, such as preventing the employment of the aged, particularly difficult to find employment in the labor market, and extending their retirement age, etc., thereby impairing the soundness, etc. of the subsidy system, it is difficult to deem the instant additional collection disposition that collects twice the previous payment amount and the instant restriction on payment restriction disposition that limits support between 12 months, to violate the principle of proportionality by infringing

3. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge, Kim Hong-il

Judges Lee Hong-hoon

Judges Kim Gi-sung

1) The Plaintiff’s filing of the instant application with the Plaintiff at the warden constituted false or other unlawful means under the former Employment Insurance Act.

The argument that "the application for the subsidy of this case was wrong in the preparatory document dated June 23, 2015, although it was alleged that "the application for the subsidy of this case was not made".

It does not deal with the disposition of return of this case by withdrawing the claim.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.