(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.4.25. 선고 2013구합3956 판결

A. On November 11, 2008, the Plaintiff leased a commercial building located in Busan Shipping Daegu D (hereinafter “instant business site”) on December 1, 2008, under the trade name of Busan Shipping Daegu B building 102 Dong 1213, which operated database and online information provision companies.

B. On February 27, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted a report on the plan to improve the employment environment of small and medium enterprises, including sn beam professional projector and computer installation, to the Defendant on the full repair of the dormitory and education room at the instant workplace, and submitted the report on the plan to improve the employment environment of small and medium enterprises. On March 9, 2009, the Defendant approved it on June 15, 2009 after on-site verification.

C. On September 3, 2009, the Plaintiff reported completion of the improvement of the employment environment of small and medium enterprises, and subsequently applied for the improvement of the employment environment of small and medium enterprises on September 25, 2009. The Defendant decided to pay the subsidies of KRW 33,966,970 in total on November 27, 2009 (i.e., subsidies of KRW 31,566,970 in total + subsidies of KRW 2.4 million for new employees) and paid the said subsidies to the Plaintiff on December 3, 2009.

D. Since January 20, 2009 to February 26, 2009, the Defendant issued a disposition to order the Plaintiff to return subsidies granted pursuant to Article 20 of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 7 of the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s Public Notice (No. 208-8) to the Plaintiff on November 27, 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiff started to improve the employment environment, such as paying a total of KRW 24 million over six times to the representative F of Information Service, a contractor of the Employment Environment Improvement Project, a total of KRW 24 million (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On February 25, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but received a dismissal ruling on August 6, 2013, and filed the instant administrative litigation after receiving the written ruling on August 16, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 16, Eul evidence 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s application for subsidies after the payment of part of the construction cost is due to the lack of knowledge of relevant provisions. Considering that the Plaintiff’s workplace is zero, the size of the Plaintiff’s workplace is considerably damaged by the fire of the building adjacent to the instant workplace that received subsidies, and is faced with economic difficulties by moving the workplace to another place, and that the Defendant approved the payment of subsidies by exercising supervisory authority, such as on-site verification, etc., the instant disposition ordering the return of subsidies that was already received is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the discretionary authority.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

Considering Articles 20 and 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, Articles 15(1) and (2), and 56(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, and Article 7(1) and (6) of the Regulations on the Payment of Subsidies for the Improvement of Employment Environment for Small and Medium Enterprises, employment improvement subsidies are paid to employers who have expanded employment opportunities through the improvement of employment environment, etc., and if an employer has already started to improve employment environment by entering into a contract for the installation of facilities and equipment prior to the submission of a plan for the improvement of employment environment for himself/herself as required, it is reasonable to deem that it is intended to promote efficient creation of employment and prevent unjust receipt of subsidies through the proper execution of limited public resources by concealing such circumstances.

As to the instant case, the aforementioned facts and the aforementioned circumstances are as follows, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments and arguments, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff entered into a contract to rent the instant workplace for at least three months prior to the submission of the employment environment improvement plan, and (ii) the first floor education room and the second floor dormitory subject to the employment environment improvement in the pertinent workplace from the time of the improvement of the employment environment were old enough to use them only. Accordingly, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for a construction project with E Information Institute and concluded a contract for a construction project with E Information Institute and submitted a report on the employment environment improvement plan (2,4 million won out of the total amount paid by E Information InstituteF) on several occasions, and even if the Defendant approved the employment environment improvement plan through on-site confirmation and received the subsidy, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant could not order the Plaintiff to return the subsidy scheduled under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes. Furthermore, even if the Defendant received the subsidy, the Defendant could not order the Plaintiff to additionally collect the amount already under the employment improvement plan.

Even if considering various circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, there is no violation of law that deviates from or abused the discretionary authority of the instant disposition.

3. Conclusion

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