(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.12.10 2015구합268

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.12.10 2015구합268

고용장려지원금 부정수급에 대한 반환 등 처분취소

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a management consulting agreement with the Korean Enterprise Examination (hereinafter “instant company”) on government subsidies as a corporation engaging in taxi transport business.

B. On June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for subsidies for extension of employment of the aged (hereinafter “the instant application”) (hereinafter “instant subsidies”) (hereinafter “instant application”), and received subsidies totaling KRW 27,00,000,000 from the Defendant during the period from the second quarter of 2010 to the first quarter of 2013.

C. The Defendant conducted an examination as to whether the Plaintiff’s improper receipt of subsidies, and confirmed that the rules of employment of the Plaintiff, which were implemented on January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2009, were falsely prepared for the instant application, and that the Plaintiff had already set the retirement age at 60 years from January 16, 2003.

Accordingly, from November 7, 2014 to November 6, 2015, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff an order to return the full amount of KRW 27,000,000 for subsidies illegally received, along with a restriction on payment, including subsidies (hereinafter “instant order to return”), and issued an additional collection disposition for KRW 54,00,000 equivalent to twice the subsidies (hereinafter “instant additional collection disposition”; “the instant order to return” combined with the instant order to return”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1, 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was aware of the subsidy system for extension of employment of the elderly from the company of this case and did not intend to unlawfully receive the subsidy because it was intended to fully entrust the business to the company of this case, and that the plaintiff was accused of the company of this case and received the subsidy. Thus, there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the plaintiff about his failure to perform his duty.

(b).

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2015.12.10 2015구합275

-부산지방법원 2015.01.09 2014구합21104

-부산지방법원 2015.07.02 2015노1131

-부산지방법원 2017.01.26 2015구합21095

-대전지방법원 2017.07.13 2016구단100647