2010Guhap610 Subsidies for temporary layoff benefits

A Stock Company

The President of the Gwangju Regional Labor Administration

July 22, 2010

September 2, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition to recover the amount of KRW 5,648,280 granted to the Plaintiff on March 5, 2009 and to restrict the payment of the amount of subsidies for maintaining employment (suspension of business) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff reported to the Defendant a plan for employment maintenance measures (suspension) to suspend part of his/her employees from September 16, 208 to December 31, 201 of the same year on the ground of business deterioration, etc., and applied for employment maintenance support payment (hereinafter “business suspension support”) as indicated below, and received KRW 2,824,140 in total from the Defendant.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On March 5, 2009, the Defendant rendered the following dispositions (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) on the grounds that the Plaintiff received or intended to receive subsidies by reporting the date of annual temporary employment of the persons eligible for employment maintenance as the date of annual employment, on the grounds that it constitutes “a person who received or intended to receive support for employment security activities by fraud or other improper means” under Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 9792, Oct. 9, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “former Employment Insurance Act”).

C. Foods

○ On November 2008 and December 12 of the same year, the site pay for the application for subsidies.

○ Period of restriction on payment: The total amount to be paid ○○ on February 2, 2010 from November 4, 2008 to February 2, 2010: 5,648,280 won (amount of illegal receipt: 2,824,140 won, additional collection amount: 2,824,140 won) [based on recognition]] without dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff stated that a person subject to employment maintenance used annual leave in the monthly root status table ( September to December) in 2008, etc. that the Plaintiff’s employees participated in the company’s difficulties. As such, the Plaintiff did not receive or intend to receive subsidies by reporting the date of the annual leave of a person subject to employment support as a holiday. Thus, the Plaintiff erred by misapprehending the fact that the instant disposition was issued.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the statement No. 3, No. 4, 5, and No. 12-1 through 4 of the evidence No. 12, the Plaintiff’s representative director and the workers belonging to the Plaintiff agreed to use annual leave on September 2008 through December 12 of the same year, ② the report on non-permanent leave, and Oct. 11 of the same year, 25 of the same year; ② the employees subject to employment maintenance B, C, the employees subject to employment maintenance on the 22th of the same month; the representative of the Defendant on December 6, 2008; ④ the Plaintiff’s total number of annual leave days from September 2008 to December 12 of the same year; ④ the Plaintiff’s written confirmation on temporary leave from September 208 to December 2009; ④ the Plaintiff’s written confirmation on temporary leave from September 28, 2009 to December 20.

According to the above facts, although the plaintiff did not suspend business for those subject to employment maintenance on September 9, 2008, October 20, 11, 25 of the same year, November 8, 22 of the same year, December 6, 12 of the same year, and December 20 of the same month, the plaintiff filed a report as to the suspension of business and received a subsidy of KRW 2,824,140 from the defendant (this does not interfere with the recognition as above only with the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the same year). Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that there was an error of mistake in the facts of the disposition of this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Judges Cho Jong-hee

Judges Cho Jin-ho

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.