2015Nu24383 Revocation of Disposition, such as the return of illegal receipt of the employment encouragement subsidy

A Stock Company

The Head of the Ulsan Regional Labor Agency

Ulsan District Court Decision 2015Guhap275 Decided December 10, 2015

June 1, 2016

July 13, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. In the first instance court’s determination, around November 10, 2014, the Defendant issued an order to return the subsidy for extension of employment of the elderly citizens to the Plaintiff on the basis of the order to return the subsidy for extension of employment of the elderly citizens and the imposition of KRW 147,120,000 shall be revoked. In the first instance, the Defendant’s disposition is revoked on November 10, 2014, additionally collecting the subsidy for extension of employment of the elderly citizens at KRW 147,120,000.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of the court's judgment for the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where part of the judgment is dismissed or the judgment on the plaintiff's new argument is added as follows. Thus, this court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. [Supplementary or additional part]

According to the fourth decision of the court of first instance, the part of the second judgment in the second sentence from the third to the second sentence is as follows. "Ex Post C appealed against the above decision and appealed from the Busan District Court 2015Do2294, but on January 22, 2016, the appeal was dismissed, and the appeal was again dismissed on April 28, 2016, but the appeal was dismissed on April 28, 2016, the above decision became final and conclusive as it became final and conclusive. On the last day of the second decision of the court of first instance, the judgment on the plaintiff's argument was added as follows. Since the collective agreement of the plaintiff 2009 provided that "the retirement age of the union members does not have any limit on the retirement age of union members," the plaintiff's workplace retirement age should not be deemed abolished by the law of employment extension of the elderly members, and thus, the plaintiff's employment extension subsidy should not be deemed to have been implemented by the law of employment extension of the elderly.

Article 25(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 25(1)2 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2031 of Oct. 23, 2007) provide that a subsidy for extension of employment of the aged shall be granted only to the "workplace whose retirement age is extended", but only to the "workplace whose retirement age is extended" under Article 25(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act as amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Dec. 31, 2010, the provision on the subsidy for extension of employment of the aged was newly established on Oct. 17, 2007 and enforced on Jan. 1, 2008 (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2031 of Oct. 23, 2007). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s ground for the abolishment of the provision on the subsidy for extension of employment of the aged is clearly stated in Article 15(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge, judges and grandchildren;

Applicable Mutatis Mutandis to judge gambling

Judges and worships

1) The provision on the payment of subsidies for extension of employment of the elderly.