2010Guhap3145 Termination of Support Agreements and revocation of restrictions on business participation.

Dasan Culture Promotion Agency, an incorporated association

The head of the Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office

June 16, 201

June 30, 2011

1. The part against which the revocation of the disposition of restriction on participation in a project that creates social jobs and its similar project among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s restriction on participation in the Plaintiff on July 8, 2010, ① the termination of an agreement to support a social job creation project on September 2, 2009, ② the restriction on participation in a social job creation project and its similar project for three years (from July 9, 2010 to July 8, 2013) (from July 9, 2010 to July 8, 2013), ③ the termination of an agreement to support social enterprise professionals on February 25, 2010, ④ the restriction on participation for three years (from July 9, 2010 to July 8, 2013) for a project for supporting social enterprise professionals, ⑤ the restriction on participation for three years (from July 9, 201 to July 2013) for a social job creation subsidy of KRW 2,015,750).

1. Details of the disposition;

On September 5, 2007, the Plaintiff was a corporation established for the establishment and operation of a profit-making business group, establishment of a social company, etc., and was selected by the Ministry of Employment and Labor as a part of the project for creating social jobs from the Minister of Employment and Labor as a part of the project for creating a new job. On September 12, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a support agreement with the Defendant and continued to carry out the project in this case. On September 2, 2009, the period of support between the Defendant and the Defendant was from September 5, 2009 to September 4, 2010.

After ○ on February 25, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the support of social enterprise professionals (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement on the support of professional human resources”) with the Defendant for a period of 12 months from the date of employment, three persons for support (one person for personnel management and labor, one person for marketing and public relations, one person for accounting and finance), and one person for support.

○ As a result of examining the appropriateness of the instant project from April 22, 2010 to May 13, 2013, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was unfairly paid KRW 2,015,750 for the social job-seeking subsidy under the pretext of personnel expenses (= KRW 371,30 for A personnel expenses + KRW 1,64,420 for B personnel expenses).

○ On July 8, 2010, the Defendant: (a) terminated the instant employment support agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 1”); (b) restricted participation in the instant employment creation project and its similar project for three years (from July 9, 2010 to July 8, 2013) (hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 2”); (c) terminated the instant employment support agreement for professional human resources (hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 3”); and (d) terminated the instant employment support agreement for social enterprise professionals (hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 3”); and (e) restricted participation in the instant employment support project for three years (from July 9, 2010 to July 8, 2013) (hereinafter referred to as “instant Disposition 4”); and (e) decided to recover subsidies for social jobs 2,015,750 won (hereinafter referred to as “the instant decision or disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

(a) Part of a claim for revocation of restrictions on participation in a project for creating social jobs, etc. (the second disposition of this case);

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the claim part revoking the disposition that the Defendant’s participation in the Plaintiff’s social job creation project and similar project for three years (from July 9, 2010 to July 8, 2013) against the Plaintiff on July 8, 2010.

If an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition becomes null and void due to the revocation, and no longer exists, and a lawsuit seeking revocation against non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu108, Dec. 12, 1995; 96Nu1931, Sept. 26, 1997; 2004Nu5317, Sept. 28, 2006).

However, on March 7, 2011, where the lawsuit in this case is pending, the defendant revoked ex officio the remaining period of restriction on participation in the above social job creation project, etc. on the plaintiff on March 7, 201, because there is no dispute between the parties, the disposition of restriction on participation in the above social job creation project, etc. is no longer effective due to such revocation, and thus, the part seeking cancellation of the above disposition of restriction on participation in the above social job creation project, etc. among the lawsuit in this case is a non-existent administrative disposition, and it is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

B. Part on the claim for cancellation of the Employment Support Agreement and cancellation of the redemption decision

(1) As to whether it is an administrative disposition which is subject to an appeal litigation (Disposition Nos. 1 and 5 of this case)

The Defendant asserts that the decision to terminate and recover the employment support agreement of this case is unlawful since the termination of the contract (the instant employment support agreement) entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on an equal footing and the declaration of intent to return unjust enrichment therefrom, which is merely an exercise of public authority, and thus does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

The issue of whether an administrative disposition is an administrative disposition cannot be determined abstractly and generally. In specific cases, an administrative disposition is a law enforcement with respect to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency as a public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. In mind, the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and whether the act satisfies the requirements of establishment and validity as an administrative disposition to a certain extent in the subject, contents, form, procedure, etc. of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, substantial relation between the act and disadvantage suffered by interested parties such as the other party, and the attitude of the administrative agency and interested parties related to the pertinent act, etc. shall be determined individually (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du4397, Jun. 14, 2007).

According to the overall purport of the statement and arguments as to this case's health team, Gap evidence 1, and Eul evidence 3-3, it cannot be denied that the plaintiff is implementing the business of this case in the form of "support agreement with the defendant," and that the termination and recovery decision of the employment support agreement of this case also has the appearance of the return of the subsidy as "the termination of the agreement on the ground of the plaintiff's non-performance of the employment support agreement of this case's contract and its restoration."

However, comprehensively taking account of the following facts: (a) “social job creation project” is a system implemented based on Article 18-3 of the Framework Act on Employment Policy, Article 10 and Article 14 of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act; (b) the Ministry of Employment and Labor or a local government, etc. as an operating entity of the system, and is in charge of the role of finding part-time organizations and entering into an agreement for support after receiving the application from the desired organization. (c) According to Article 2(2)2 and Article 10 of the Employment Support Agreement, the defendant can regularly guide, check and evaluate the actual conditions of the project even after entering into the Employment Support Agreement, and can exercise the Plaintiff’s right to access to the workplace during such guidance and inspection process, and the Plaintiff can receive a warning, corrective order, or order to terminate the contract in accordance with the above evaluation; and (c) according to Article 11 of the Employment Support Agreement, the Plaintiff may return part of the subsidy to the Plaintiff in accordance with the guidelines for the collection of the subsidies or other guidelines for the collection of new employment.

In light of various circumstances, such as the purport of the program to create social jobs known by the above recognition facts, the status and role of the administrative agency within the above system, the possibility of self-performance by the administrative agency in the event of non-performance of the contract by the counter-party to the disposition, and the disadvantage suffered by the counter-performance of the contract is different from the general contract failure under private law, and the plaintiff has no choice but to recognize the termination and recovery decision of the job support agreement in this case as administrative disposition due to a series of procedures conducted by the defendant, the termination and recovery decision of the job support agreement in this case cannot be deemed to be only the termination and restoration of the contract concluded by the defendant on an equal footing with the plaintiff, notwithstanding the external form of the job support agreement in this case. It is reasonable to view that the decision to terminate and recover the job support

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(2) As to the existence of the interest in the lawsuit (No. 1 of this case)

The defendant asserts that the claim for this portion is unlawful, since the period of support of the job support agreement of this case expires, and even if based on the result of the review, it was decided to terminate the support of the project of this case, the plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking cancellation of the termination of the job support agreement of this case.

A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an illegal administrative disposition is intended to restore to the original state by removing the illegal state caused by the illegal disposition, and protect or relieve the rights and interests infringed or interfered with the disposition. Thus, even if the cancellation of the illegal disposition is impossible to restore to the original state, it shall be deemed that there is no benefit to seek the cancellation if it is impossible to restore to the original state. However, if there are special circumstances to deem that there is any legal disadvantage to the plaintiff due to the remaining external form of the disposition, it shall be deemed that there is a benefit to seek the cancellation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu4568, Jul. 11, 1995; 93Nu389, Jul. 27, 1993; 93Nu389, Jun. 25, 1985; 74Nu147, Jul. 12, 1977).

In light of the fact that the period of subsidization under the Employment Support Agreement was from September 5, 2009 to September 4, 2010, the above facts are the same, and the fact that this Court suspended its validity on August 13, 2010 until the date of the instant judgment regarding the termination of the Employment Support Agreement, is apparent in the record. As such, the Employment Support Agreement in this case continues with the period of subsidization by the court’s decision to suspend the above suspension of execution, and the period of subsidization has already expired as of the date of the closing of argument in this case.

However, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 10 and the whole arguments, the plaintiff paid labor costs for participating workers in the business of this case from the termination of the contract to the expiration of the period of subsidization due to the termination of the employment support agreement of this case and the suspension of the payment of subsidies for social jobs. The defendant reserved the payment of the above labor costs borne by the plaintiff to the plaintiff on December 16, 2010 and the plaintiff on December 16, 2010, and notified the plaintiff to the effect that the payment will not be paid in the case of the plaintiff's loss. In full view of this, the plaintiff's remaining external form of termination of the employment support agreement of this case, and at least there is a legal disadvantage that the plaintiff would not receive labor costs for participating workers at his own expense during the period from the termination of the employment support agreement of this case until the expiration of the period of subsidization. Thus, even if the period of subsidization of this case's employment support agreement of this case expired, there is a benefit in filing a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the termination of the employment support agreement

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Whether each disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion 3)

The plaintiff asserts that each disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Unspecific and lack of reasons for the disposition

The grounds for disposition are not specified in the termination and recovery decision of the job support agreement of this case. It is not specified in the guidance for disposition.

(2) Defects in hearing procedures

Although the termination and recovery decision of the instant professional manpower support agreement is to limit the rights and interests of the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to present his opinion, such as prior notice of disposition.

(3) Non-existence of an illegal receipt

A would retire from office on March 18, 2010, which is 30,000 days of membership. However, although the Plaintiff accepted the resignation as of March 31, 2010 and reported it to the Defendant, A made an erroneous entry in the attendance book as of March 31, 2010 by mistake that D, who is an employee in charge of neglect, has served until March 31, 2010.

In addition, B had been suffering from fingers during the work on February 5, 2010, but continued to work normally until March 31, 2010 after receiving hospital treatment according to his/her own will. Therefore, in the case of A, there was no intent or intent to deny the payment of subsidies to the Plaintiff, and in the case of B, there was no false preparation of the attendance book for the said participatorys, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have illegally received the subsidies under the pretext of the labor cost for the said participatorys.

(4) In light of the background and amount of the fraudulent receipt of subsidies for the exclusion of discretionary power and the abuse of social jobs, each of the instant dispositions is so harsh that the Plaintiff deviates from or abused discretionary power.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Circumstances leading to investigating the operational status of the instant business

On April 22, 2010, A, who was a part of the instant business, had a phone call from the Defendant’s employee, paid the difference to the Plaintiff’s employee on March 2010, and had a contact to return it to the personal passbook. However, the Defendant asked about whether the difference is returned to the corporate passbook. From April 22, 2010 to May 13, 2010, the Defendant investigated the appropriateness of the instant business and whether the government subsidies were unlawfully received.

(2) the management of services and receipt of subsidies to A

O served as a participant in the instant project from March 16, 2010, and on the 18th of the same month, the Plaintiff expressed his intention to retire and did not work thereafter.

○ The Plaintiff accepted A’s resignation on March 31, 2010, and deemed A to have retired as of March 31, 2010 on the following day.

○○, however, D, an employee in charge of the Plaintiff’s root, was an employee from March 16, 2010 to March 31, 201 of the same month and signed on behalf of the Defendant in the attendance book as if they were retired. Based on this, the Plaintiff received subsidies of KRW 371,330 in total from the Defendant for personnel expenses from March 19, 201 to March 31, 201.

(3) Failure management and receipt of grants to B

B, who worked as a part of the instant project, had been employed as a part of the employee, on February 5, 2010, after cleaning the end-of-product food manufacturing machine, suffered injury from cutting off the hand and the possession of the car to the end roller.

○ Accordingly, B received hospital treatment from February 5, 2010 to June 26, 2010 (22 days), hospital treatment from February 27, 201 to March 15, 2010 (17 days), hospital treatment from March 16, 2010 to March 31, 201, and hospital treatment from April 1, 201 to June 30 of the same year (91 days).

O B filed an application for medical care on April 15, 2010 and received medical care approval for the period from February 5, 2010 to June 30, 2010 on the following day from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service as the name of injury or disease.

○, however, in the attendance book of B, B signed that B worked daily from February 5, 2010 to March 31, 2010, and based on this, the Plaintiff received subsidies of KRW 1,644,420 in total from the Defendant as labor cost for the above period.

(4) Contents of the relevant provisions

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) made the Plaintiff’s false attendance book of A and B and received the Defendant’s total subsidy of KRW 2,015,750 (=A labor cost of KRW 371,30 + B labor cost of KRW 1,644,420). Each of the instant dispositions was made on the ground that each of the instant dispositions was made; (b) the agreement and implementation guidelines based on the disposition at the time are as follows.

(A) The instant employment support arrangements and guidelines for implementation of social jobs

Article 11 of the Job Support Arrangement provides that if the Plaintiff received subsidies in violation of the instant guidelines for implementing social jobs or the employment support agreement of this case, all or part of the subsidies shall be returned, and the detailed guidelines for taking measures against the Plaintiff’s violation of the Plaintiff’s implementation guidelines or support agreement shall be in accordance with attached Table 2 of the implementation guidelines, and the matters not prescribed in the instant employment support agreement regarding the return and recovery of subsidies shall be in accordance with the relevant provisions, such as the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies. Meanwhile, the implementation guidelines for the social jobs of this case shall be as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

(B) Agreement on the Support of Experts and Guidelines for the Implementation of Experts

Article 15 of the Support Agreement for Professional Manpower provides that matters not specified in the Support Agreement for Professional Manpower shall be dealt with in accordance with the Guidelines for the Implementation of Professional Manpower of this case, relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and reasonable standards under social norms. The Guidelines for the Implementation of Professional Manpower of this case provided for in attached Table 1 as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7 (including branch numbers in case of provisional number), Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 9, Eul evidence No. 19 and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the existence of a defect with reason (as to the Disposition Nos. 1, 5 of this case)

Article 23 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that the administrative agency shall present the basis and reasons for the disposition to the parties when rendering the disposition.

In light of the following circumstances, the head of a central government agency may cancel all or part of the decision to grant subsidies when a subsidized business operator has received subsidies by false application or other unlawful means, and order the return of subsidies corresponding to the cancelled part of the subsidies in the case where the subsidies have already been already granted. The contents of the same are also included in the job support agreement and the guidelines for implementation of social jobs in this case. ② At the time of the termination and recovery of the employment support agreement in this case, the defendant made a false statement on the part of A and B's part of the attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance attendance at the time of the decision to cancel the employment support agreement in this case, and ③ In addition, in view of the fact that the defendant provided the social jobs of this case based on the relevant subsidies, the plaintiff's assertion that the above disposition was made for any reason for the cancellation of the employment support agreement in this case, is not sufficient.

(2) As to the deficiency in the procedure for submitting opinions (as to the disposition Nos. 3 and 5 of this case)

According to Articles 21(1) and (4) and 22(1) through (4) of the Administrative Procedures Act, where an administrative agency imposes a duty on a party or imposes a restriction on his/her rights and interests, the administrative agency shall notify the party concerned of the facts and legal grounds for the disposition in advance, the purport that the party concerned may submit his/her opinion, the method of handling the case where the administrative agency fails to present his/her opinion, etc.; provided that the party concerned shall be given an opportunity to present his/her opinion when a hearing is held or a public hearing is not held in other Acts and subordinate statutes; provided that the administrative agency shall not give a prior notice or hear his/her opinion in cases where it is deemed that the hearing of opinion is considerably difficult or clearly unnecessary due to the nature of the disposition in question. Thus, in cases of an infringing administrative disposition, unless the administrative agency gives such prior notice or the opportunity to present his/her opinion is an exceptional case where the administrative agency does not give such prior notice or the opportunity to present his/her opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 204Du1254, May 28, 2004).

Meanwhile, Article 21(4)3 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that a prior notice of a disposition may not be given in cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that hearing of opinions is considerably difficult or clearly unnecessary due to the nature of the disposition in question. Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that a prior notice of a disposition may not be given; ① where an opportunity to hear opinions is anticipated to cause substantial harm to the public interest by giving an opportunity to hear opinions (Article 1); ② where a disposition is intended on the grounds that the technical standards to be observed by Acts and subordinate statutes or municipal ordinances and rules are clearly prescribed and do not meet such standards; ③ where a fact is clearly verified by testing, measuring, or other objective methods (Article 21(4)3); ③ where a hearing of opinions is deemed unnecessary due to an objective proof of the facts underlying the disposition in question by a court’s ruling (Article 3); where a foreign administrative agency (including an organization, etc.); where an administrative agency issues the same kind of disposition to a foreign person (including an organization, etc.); and where an administrative agency’s rate of discretion is clearly prescribed in Article 20(3).4).

However, in full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s cancellation and recovery decision of the support agreement of this case constitutes “where there is a reasonable ground to believe that the hearing of opinions is obviously unnecessary due to the nature of the pertinent disposition” as stipulated in Article 21(4)3 of the Administrative Procedures Act, and thus, even if the Defendant terminated the support agreement of this case and did not separately give prior notice or give the opportunity to present opinions in making the restitution decision of this case, each of the above dispositions cannot be deemed unlawful immediately.

① According to Articles 30(1) and 31(1) of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies, where an organization participating in a project for creating social jobs has received subsidies by fraudulent or other unlawful means, the Defendant’s termination of an agreement for supporting the project for creating social jobs and the recovery of unlawful receipt of such subsidies. According to the instant agreement for supporting professional human resources and the guidelines for the implementation of professional human resources, where a social enterprise unlawfully received government subsidies, such as the project for creating social jobs, the Defendant stipulates that the contract for supporting social enterprises should be terminated. If an organization participating in the project for creating social jobs claims and received subsidies by fraudulent or other unlawful means, the Defendant appears to have recovered the unlawful receipt in addition to cancelling the agreement for supporting the project for creating social jobs in accordance with the above agreement and guidelines, and also terminated the agreement for supporting the social enterprise professionals.

② The Defendant conducted a guidance and inspection on the instant project, and determined that the Plaintiff’s attendance book of A and B, a participating worker, was falsely prepared and received subsidies for social jobs 2,015,750 won, and then served a prior notice of disposition on the Plaintiff before cancelling the instant employment support agreement. The above notice is clearly stated that the Plaintiff was unfairly paid KRW 2,015,750 on the ground that the Plaintiff was falsely prepared the attendance book of 2,015,750 on the ground of the fact and the reason for the disposition, and is also stated in the content of the scheduled administrative disposition, the grounds for the disposition, and the guidance

③ Following the receipt of the aforementioned prior notice of disposition, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant on June 4, 2010, and the employee’s error on the part of the Defendant, and the employee’s work time book was written as if the employee appeared to work. As to B, the Plaintiff was actually working as stated in the attendance book, and the Plaintiff submitted a written opinion that the payment for social jobs was not illegal, and made a statement to the same effect at the hearing held on June 23, 2010.

④ The purpose of the system of prior notification and submission of opinions under Articles 21(1) and 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act is to consider the possibility of correction of the illegal cause and to ensure prudence and appropriateness of the disposition by granting the parties an opportunity to submit materials favorable to a vindication in relation to the grounds of the disposition when an administrative agency issues an infringing administrative disposition. As seen earlier, the requirements for the cancellation of the instant employment support agreement, the instant redemption decision, and the termination of the instant employment support agreement are all “the cases where the subsidies were received in an unlawful manner.” As such, prior notification and submission of opinions were sufficiently given the opportunity to submit opinions regarding the termination of the instant employment support agreement.

In general, the recovery decision and manpower of this case, conducted with the termination of the job support agreement of this case

Even in the termination of the support agreement, it seems that it is only unnecessary procedures to go through the same administrative procedure as above.

6. In addition, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, who is aware of the job support agreement and the guidelines for the implementation of the job support agreement of this case, and the job support agreement of this case and the guidelines for the execution of professional human resources, was subject to the prior notification, submission of opinions and hearing procedures related to the termination of the job support agreement of this case, and that the Defendant was fully aware that the amount revealed by the fraudulent supply of this case was recovered in addition to the termination of the job support agreement of this case on the ground of the reasons for the disposition specified in

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(3) As to whether the Plaintiff’s improper receipt of subsidies (Disposition Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 of this case)

(A) Sanction against a violation of administrative regulations, such as the intentional act or negligence of an administrative sanction measure, is a sanction based on the objective fact of the violation of administrative regulations in order to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, barring any special circumstance, such as where there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the violator of his/her duty, it may be imposed even if there is no intentional or negligent act on the violator (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003).

On the other hand, according to Articles 30(1) and 31(1) of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies, employment support agreements and guidelines for implementation of social jobs in this case, and expert support agreements and guidelines for implementation of professional human resources in this case, where the Plaintiff received subsidies for social jobs by fraud or other improper means, the Defendant may terminate the employment support agreement in this case, recover illegal payments, and terminate the employment support agreement in this case, and restrict the Plaintiff’s participation in human resources support business for three years.

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the purport of the above fact-finding and the entire argument as to the subsidies for personnel expenses for A, insofar as the Plaintiff was engaged in management by signing on the work book of a staff member D who is given the authority and responsibility for the management of the work site, such management of false work site management may be deemed to have been conducted within the area of the Plaintiff’s control. As such, the Plaintiff’s receipt of the subsidies under the pretext of personnel expenses for A according to such management of false work site constitutes a case where the Plaintiff received the subsidies by false or other unlawful means, and even if the Plaintiff did not have any intent or intention to deny the payment of the subsidies, it is difficult to deem that there is a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff could not be any

① Comprehensively taking account of the content of the instant employment support agreement and the guidelines for implementing social jobs, the participatory workers’ attitude management in the instant project, which is a job creation project, is very important and essential. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to manage and supervise the materials, such as the participatory workers’ attendance book, and employees in charge of the participatory workers’ attitude management.

② Nevertheless, D, who is an employee in charge of the Plaintiff’s work, signed as if A had worked in the work book on March 19, 2010 and had worked on the 31st day of the same month.

③ In light of the fact that a worker himself/herself must directly sign the work book, barring any special circumstances, D cannot be deemed as a simple business error on the part of a worker who falsely signed the work book as above. Rather, the Plaintiff appears to have practically neglected or impliedly neglected such proxy signature due to negligence in management.

④ The Plaintiff was well aware of the fact that A was not present at work from March 19, 2010. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff accepted A’s resignation on March 31, 2010 and reported it to the Defendant on April 1, 201 of the same year, which is the following day. As such, the Plaintiff needs to pay due attention to the management of good faith after A was actually retired.

(c) As to subsidies on personnel expenses for B:

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the facts of the above recognition and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff had B sign the work book as if B did not have any record of having worked normally at the Plaintiff company from February 5, 2010, which was caused the loss cutting accident, and received the subsidy as the labor cost for B based on the fact that B received the subsidy, it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff received the subsidy by falsity or other unlawful means.

① During the work on February 5, 2010, B entered into a hospital’s medical treatment from the time of the injury that was cut off and carried, and continued to receive from that time until June 30, 2010. In particular, during the period between February 22 and March 16, 2010, B received hospitalized treatment.

② From February 5, 2010, B does not appear to work at the Plaintiff company since 2010, in light of the above injury level and degree, hospitalization and outpatient treatment period, etc. of B, and it seems impossible for B to work normally even if he worked at home.

③ Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, B, during the period of hospitalized treatment in February, 2010 and March, 2010, provided restaurant services from 11 A.M. to 1 P.M. at the Plaintiff Company. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that B, who worked for the Plaintiff Company for the above period, was performing the Plaintiff Company’s normal work.

④ Nevertheless, from February 5, 2010 to March 31 of the same year, the Plaintiff had B sign the work book as if he had worked normally with the Plaintiff company.

(D) Sub-committee

Therefore, the termination and recovery decision of the job support agreement of this case, and the cancellation of the contract to support professional human resources of this case and the disposition of restriction on participation of social enterprise professionals for three years is deemed to exist. Therefore, the plaintiff's allegation in this part is without merit.

(4) As to whether or not the discretion has been exceeded or abused (as to the Disposition Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 of this case)

(A) First, in light of the system, form, and language, etc. of Article 31(1) of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies with respect to the instant restitution decision, the instant restitution decision, the purport of which is the Plaintiff’s return of the illegally received subsidy, is not a discretionary act of an administrative agency, but a binding act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part, premised on the Defendant’s discretion to decide whether to recover the Plaintiff’s unlawful payment, is without merit.

(B) Next, with respect to the cancellation of the instant job support agreement and the agreement on the provision of professional human resources, and the restriction on participation for the three-year period of the Social Enterprise Experts Support Project, whether the administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretionary power under the social social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on the public interest and the disadvantages suffered by the individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the relevant act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition

The following circumstances revealed by the overall purport of the facts of recognition and arguments, namely, ① creation of jobs through non-profit organizations, etc. in the field of environment, culture, regional development, social welfare, etc., which is necessary in society, but which is not sufficiently supplied in the market due to profitability problems, is aimed at contributing to social integration and improvement of the quality of life of the people. As such, it is highly necessary to lead the proper settlement of the system by clearly stating whether subsidies provided to such projects are properly used. ② In order to achieve the purpose of the creation of social jobs and prevent unfair labor costs claims against participating workers, the management of the attendance of participating workers is strictly conducted. ③ Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s work management is strictly conducted in order to attain the objective of the creation of social jobs and prevent unfair labor costs claims against participating workers. ④ The above dispositions are unreasonably paid subsidies of KRW 2,015,750 as labor costs to participating workers by making false attendance or virtually impliedly speaking, ④ The above dispositions do not constitute abuse of discretion by the Plaintiff in light of the following circumstances.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim that revokes the disposition of restriction on participation for three years against the social job creation project and its similar project among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful and dismissed. The plaintiff's remaining claims except the above dismissed part are without merit, and it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and police officer;

Judges Mobileho

Judges Park Jae-young

1) The plaintiff stated in this part of the complaint that "the cancellation of offset disposition of KRW 2,015,750" is stated in the complaint as the offset disposition of KRW 2,015.

However, the defendant decided to recover the money by deeming that the plaintiff illegally received the subsidies of 2,015,750 won for social jobs, and it appears that the amount was offset from the subsidies of social jobs on April 2010 to be paid to the plaintiff and recovered the money. In the event that the decision to recover the money was revoked, the plaintiff can claim the payment of the social job benefits equivalent to the above amount by asserting that the above offset appropriation has no effect. Thus, the defendant's decision to recover the money of 2,015,750 won should be decided to revoke the decision to recover the money of 2,015,750 won.

2) The remaining dispositions, other than the restrictions on participation for three years in a project that creates social jobs, mean each disposition of the case Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 (see the above paragraph (2));

3) On May 12, 2011, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff received subsidies of KRW 333,00,00 paid as personnel expenses for participating workers C in addition to the instant case. However, the Defendant’s assertion is merely an addition of circumstances that may be considered in determining whether the instant disposition is deviates or abused, and it does not seem to add a new reason for disposition. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s assertion added a new reason for disposition and thus is not allowed should not be determined separately.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.