2014Nu63765 The Small and Medium Business Administration shall revoke the decision to refund the 2014Nu65.

A Stock Company

The Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency Head of the Seoul Regional Labor Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap8131 decided August 21, 2014

July 8, 2015

August 26, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On October 8, 2013, the Defendant revoked the disposition of return KRW 2,620,00,000 against the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court concerning this case is as follows, except for the supplement of the judgment as referred to in paragraph (2). The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Supplementary judgment

The Defendant asserts that the instant guideline is an administrative rule that provides for specific matters for the implementation of youth internship projects, and that, even if there is no explicit delegation provision of the mother law with respect to sanctions for illegal receipt of internship subsidies, it cannot be deemed that it goes beyond the scope of the parent law’s regulation. However, as the first instance court properly pointed out, Article 25(2) of the Employment Insurance Act delegates matters necessary for the implementation and subsidization of expenses of the instant project to the Presidential Decree and Article 36(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act only delegates the Minister of Employment and Labor with regard to the type and content of the subject project, the scope of the insured, etc., the scope of the subject project, the details and level of the support, and the method of application, and does not delegate matters concerning sanctions for illegal receipt and demand to the Minister of Employment and Labor. However, the instant guide IX5-1 provides for an administrative act that imposes restrictions on the legal status of the Plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be seen that the above provision should be interpreted within the scope of the mother law’s provision of the Act.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be accepted as reasonable.

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable with the conclusion as above. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge, the whole judge;

Judges Dok-woo

Judges Yoon Jong-dae