1. The Defendant’s order to return KRW 27,200,000 to the Plaintiff on September 12, 2014 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person established on June 4, 2007 and engaged in the business of manufacturing automation facilities and consulting business, and the main management Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “foreign company”) entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the entrusted operation of youth employment internship system with the Defendant, and is an operating institution that carries out the business of youth employment internship from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. On January 2, 2012 and March 7, 2013, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 15,600,000 of the full-time conversion subsidy from the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff participated in the instant project and employed A, B, C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “instant workers”) as an intern after concluding the internship support agreement with Nonparty Company (hereinafter “instant agreement”). On the ground that the Plaintiff received KRW 27,200,000 from Nonparty Company for the instant workers’ conversion of A, B, C, and D into full-time employees.

C. As a result of the special inspection of the participating enterprises in the instant project, the Defendant may not employ a person who had been employed by the implementing enterprise as an intern in the relevant enterprise under the 2013 Guidelines for the Implementation of the Youth Employment Finding System for Small and Medium Enterprises (hereinafter “Implementation Guidelines in 2013”).

“In violation of the provision, “A” was employed by converting E and F, which had been working in the Plaintiff’s workplace before the internship support agreement with Nonparty Company, into an internship, and was confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff directly selected A, B, C, and D through the employment evasion site, such as “Miscellaneous Korea”, without the approval of the employment center or the introduction of the non-party company, without the introduction of the recommendation of the employment center, from among youth job seekers who received the introduction of the employment center in 2012 (hereinafter “2012 implementation guidelines”).

The defendant on September 12, 2014, is the Employment Insurance Act for the plaintiff.