1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 28, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant an application for participation in the work-based job creation support program and a project plan to newly create one office worker for five days a week and thirty hours working per week, based on the working conditions, and received approval from the Defendant for one person eligible for subsidies.

B. On December 1, 2015, if the Plaintiff newly employed the Defendant as a person eligible for a part-time job bonus, the Plaintiff applied for a part-time job bonus and received a total of KRW 6,300,000 from March 2016 to September 2016 from the Defendant three times.

C. On January 9, 2017, the Defendant issued an order to return 6,300,000 won of the amount of the non-scheduled-time job grant to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the fact that he/she received 6,300,000 won of the non-scheduled-Time job grant by means of falsely preparing and submitting the work book, employment contract, etc. as if he/she was employed as a part-time worker even after employed as a part-time worker on the preceding-time basis,” pursuant to Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant issued a disposition restricting the payment of the non-scheduled-time job grant amounting to KRW 6,30,000,000,000, which is twice the amount

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On January 31, 2017, the Defendant registered the instant disposition notice to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff received the instant disposition notice on February 1, 2018.

E. On June 27, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, on May 25, 2018, rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that “The Plaintiff appears to have known that the instant disposition was taken on February 1, 2017, but the instant administrative appeal was filed on June 25, 2017, 90 days thereafter, and thus, the instant request for administrative appeal was illegal in violation of Article 27 of the Administrative Appeals Act.”

[Ground of recognition] dispute.