1. The Defendant’s collection disposition of KRW 41,400,000 of the subsidies for extension of employment of the elderly citizens against the Plaintiff on May 8, 2014 and additional collection charges of KRW 82,80.

1. A Plaintiff, who engages in ordinary passenger transport business, etc. during the course of the disposition, filed an application for a subsidy for extension of employment of the elderly with respect to the extension of retirement age (hereinafter “retirement age extension subsidy”) on two occasions during the quarter from February 2, 2010 to April 201, and filed an application for a subsidy for extension of employment of the elderly with respect to the extension of retirement age (hereinafter “retirement age extension subsidy”) in total KRW 21.9 million from the Defendant, and received a subsidy for extension of employment of the elderly in relation to the re-employment of the retirement age holder on two occasions during the quarter from March 209 to March 2012 (hereinafter “retirement age extension subsidy”).

After that, on February 9, 2006, the Defendant collected total of KRW 41,40,000,000,000,000 from each of the above elderly employment extension subsidies that the Plaintiff submitted to the Plaintiff on May 8, 2014 on the ground that the extension of retirement age under the rules of employment (effective January 1, 2006) was false, and additionally collected KRW 82,80,000,000,000 from the date of the disposition, and notified the Plaintiff that the payment of various subsidies and grants for employment security programs for 12 months from the date of the

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff actually extended the retirement age from 55 years to 57 years of age in the rules of employment that was implemented on January 1, 2006.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the above rules of employment are false is unlawful.

B. The rules of employment (Enforcement January 1, 2006) submitted by the Plaintiff while applying for subsidies for employment of the aged on February 9, 2006 set the retirement age at 57 years. On the other hand, the rules of employment (Enforcement January 1, 2006) submitted on February 10, 2006 when reporting the revision to the rules of employment (Enforcement January 1, 2006) set the retirement age at 55 years.

In light of this point, the rules of employment submitted by the plaintiff on February 9, 2006 was prepared falsely to receive the aged employment pension subsidy.

Therefore, Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is applicable to the Plaintiff.