2011Guhap7404 Revocation of revocation of revocation of subsidies to improve employment environment of small and medium enterprises

A Stock Company

The Administrator of the Gyeonggi Local Labor Agency;

November 3, 2011

December 8, 2011

1. The Defendant’s disposition on August 26, 2010 to revoke the payment of a site price for subsidies to improve the employment environment of small and medium enterprises to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 6, 2009, the Plaintiff Company was a small and medium enterprise that is engaged in manufacturing and selling diplomatic missions, cooking containers, etc. in Ssung City B, and submitted a written report on a plan to improve the employment environment of small and medium enterprises, stating that it is "cafeteria, physical training room, shower room, South and female toilet (hereinafter "the improvement project in this case"), "105,032,371 won", "105,032,371 won", and "one worker expected to be employed after improving the employment environment."

B. Accordingly, on March 23, 2010, the Defendant required construction cost of KRW 82,040,000 for the instant improvement project and approved the improvement plan for the above employment environment of the Plaintiff Company with the amount of KRW 41,020,000 among them as the subsidized amount.

C. On April 26, 2010, the Plaintiff Company completed the instant improvement project and submitted a report on the completion of employment environment improvement to the Defendant on the 30th of the same month.

D. On July 19, 2010, the Plaintiff Company applied for the payment of the employment environment improvement subsidy of KRW 41,020,000 to the Defendant after the improvement of the employment environment.

E. On August 26, 2010, the Defendant compared the monthly average number of workers (20.66) in the 3 months immediately preceding the month in which the date on which the Plaintiff applied for the employment improvement subsidy to the Plaintiff Company on August 26, 2010 and the monthly average number of workers (20) in the 3 months immediately preceding the month in which the date on which the Plaintiff submitted the employment improvement plan to the Plaintiff Company, on the ground that the increased number of workers is less than 1 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On October 13, 2010, Plaintiff Company filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on April 26, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff company's assertion

C, an employee of the Plaintiff Company, has been living in the housing located immediately adjacent to the Plaintiff Company’s factory for a long time, and has been serving as an arbitration in resolving the civil petition of the residents arising from the Plaintiff Company’s factory. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Company paid KRW 300,000 through KRW 500,000 per month to the audit of the Plaintiff Company. On December 15, 2009, the Plaintiff Company was employed as a regular employee of the above C and was in charge of the factory patrol and paid KRW 1,00,000 per month. As such, the above C was not an employee of the Plaintiff Company before December 15, 2009, or less than KRW 60,000 per month. Accordingly, the monthly average number of workers of the immediately preceding three months including the above C and the above 21.6 months of the month immediately preceding the date on which the Plaintiff Company applied for the employment environment improvement subsidy did not meet the monthly average number of workers of the Defendant’s employment environment improvement subsidy.

(2) The defendant's assertion

On August 13, 2010, the employee of the defendant visited the plaintiff company and visited C. It was confirmed that C. 80,000 won per month was employed by the plaintiff company before 5 years from C. A. A. A. B. D. D. of the plaintiff company conducted the heating work and the door control of the place of business before December 15, 2009 (Evidence 4) and then confirmed that C’s work was in charge of security work (Evidence 4). Accordingly, C’s work was not changed before and after December 15, 2009. Accordingly, C was employed by the plaintiff company as an employee of the plaintiff company since it was concluded a formal employment contract with the plaintiff company on December 15, 2009, and it cannot be viewed as a new job creation.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to the above relevant laws and regulations, the monthly average number of workers of the three months immediately preceding the month in which the filing date of an application for improvement subsidies after the completion date of improvement of employment environment for small and medium enterprises falls shall exceed the monthly average number of workers of the three months immediately preceding the month in which the filing date of the application for improvement plans falls. In calculating the above number of workers, any worker who is paid a monthly wage of less than 600,000 won shall be excluded from the calculation of the number of workers, and if the monthly average number of workers is less than one, the employee shall not be considered to be increased. Accordingly, the issue of this case is whether the above C actually employs and the time

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 11, and 12, Eul's testimony and the whole purport of arguments, Eul appeared as witness in this court and entered regular employment contract with the plaintiff company on Dec. 15, 209, and 30,000 won for the construction of the plaintiff company and 50,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 20,000 won for 19,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 19,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 19,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 19,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 19.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff company's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Lee Hon

Judge No. Doingk

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.