2014Nu6844 Revocation of disposition, such as the refund of subsidies for maintaining employment

A

The head of the Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office

Gwangju District Court Decision 2013Guhap1799 Decided November 13, 2014

July 9, 2015

July 23, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of return of KRW 11,642,100 for employment maintenance support payment granted to the Plaintiff on April 8, 2013, and disposition of additional collection of KRW 23,284,200 and disposition of restriction of payment of subsidies (from April 3, 2013 to April 2, 2014) is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders cancellation below, shall be revoked. The Defendant’s disposition of return of KRW 11,642,100 to the Plaintiff on April 8, 2013, and additional collection of KRW 23,284,200 against the Plaintiff is revoked (the Plaintiff reduced the purport of appeal on the third date for pleading).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is that the witness G, H, and H are witnesses G, H, and K of the first instance court's fifth trial's fifth trial's decision, and the 7th trial's fifth trial's fifth trial's first trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second trial's second

2. As to the portion of the temporary retirement used, “(1) still remains in the instant training center during the period of employment maintenance measures. This is because the Plaintiff’s proposal was accepted by the temporary retirement recipients to make an additional payment of the amount equivalent to 30% of the benefits in addition to employment maintenance support payment (70% of the benefits) if the temporary retirement recipients remain in the instant training center, or because there were inevitable circumstances for the temporary retirement recipients such as difficulty in resolving board and lodging during the period of employment maintenance measures.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge Park Byung-il

Judges Park Jae-soo

Judge Park Jong-soo