2011Guhap1397 Revocation of order to refund subsidies for employment security projects

A

Head of the Changwon District Office in Busan

September 1, 2011

October 20, 2011

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of additional collection of KRW 129,017,560 for the return of subsidies for maintaining employment and additional collection of KRW 64,508,780 against the Plaintiff on January 14, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 5, 2008, the Plaintiff is operating a small president-1 company, which is making a business registration under the name of B, a legal spouse of the Plaintiff, and has been awarded a contract with D, etc. for part of the production goods.

B. On October 22, 2009, the Defendant received an interim investigation result from the head of the original prosecutors' office of Changwon District Public Prosecutor's Office to the effect that "A (original personnel), who is the actual operator of C, falsely applied for employment maintenance support payment of KRW 24,068,796 from March 22, 2009 to May 2, 2009, and acquired it by fraud." The Defendant investigated the details of the fraudulent receipt of employment maintenance support payment subsidies provided to "C", and then, on January 14, 2010, notified "C representatives of "from March 14, 2009 to prepare and submit attendance attendance attendance records and application documents, etc. during the period of suspension of business to the effect that "the Defendant received an excessive amount of subsidy by making out and submitting them by falsity," and "the amount of subsidy returned to KRW 64,508,780 and the amount of subsidy returned to 305,295,270,200.

D. On April 13, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and changed the additional collection of KRW 322,543,900 from the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on January 11, 2011 to the additional collection of KRW 129,01,00 in the instant disposition and dismissed the remainder of the claim” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant adjudication”), and received the instant written adjudication on April 18, 201. The Defendant notified the C representative of January 21, 201 to change the instant disposition with the same content as the instant adjudication.

F. On May 19, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the instant disposition. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion that he has no standing to sue

(1) A third party who has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, even if not directly related to the other party, is admitted to standing to sue. The legal interest here refers to cases where there is a direct and specific interest protected by the law based on the pertinent disposition. However, it does not include cases where it is merely an indirect or factual interest, such as abstract, average, and general interest common to the general public as a result of protecting public interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu12556, Dec. 7, 199).

(2) In light of the above, the facts that the plaintiff registered the business of "C" in the name of "C" and the defendant made the disposition to the representative of "C", the actual operator of "C", and the plaintiff was investigated by the investigative agency in relation to the illegal receipt of the subsidies for employment maintenance and support of "C" are the plaintiff and the plaintiff was investigated by the investigative agency. In light of the above, the situation that the direct counterpart to the disposition of this case is not the plaintiff but the plaintiff is the business operator of "C", and that the plaintiff is the actual operator of "C" or the plaintiff was investigated by the investigative agency in relation to the subsidies for employment maintenance support of "C" is merely an indirect or factual interest and therefore, there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is not eligible to be the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that the period of filing a lawsuit has expired

(1) According to Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a litigation seeking revocation shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which a disposition, etc. is known, and where an administrative appeal is filed, a lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the original written adjudication on administrative appeal is served. In addition, in order to calculate the period of filing a lawsuit seeking revocation based on the date on which a written adjudication is served, not on the standard market price of disposition but on the date on which the written adjudication is served, an administrative appeal shall be lawful.

(2) On the other hand, Article 13 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that "a revocation trial may be filed by a person who has legal interest in seeking revocation or alteration of the disposition," which is identical to standing to sue in the administrative litigation, and as seen in the above (a) it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's claim is entitled to seek revocation of the disposition in this case, and as such, the plaintiff's claim cannot be deemed to be legitimate in the administrative litigation (it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's qualification is recognized in the administrative litigation merely because the Central Administrative Appeals Commission recognized the plaintiff's eligibility as a petitioner and rendered a decision citing part of the claim). The period for filing the lawsuit in this case is not the date of receiving the written ruling in this case but the date of receiving the written disposition in this case, and at least it is deemed that the plaintiff received the written disposition in this case before April 13, 2010, and thus, the lawsuit in this case was filed on April 13, 2010 and the period for filing the lawsuit in this case.

(3) Even if the Plaintiff’s qualification is recognized in the instant lawsuit, as in the ruling of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, according to the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff was deemed to have received the instant written ruling from the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on January 18, 201, and accordingly, the instant lawsuit was also filed on January 5, 2011 and 19, which was 90 days after January 18, 201, and the period for filing the lawsuit was exceeded. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not comply with the period for filing the lawsuit due to the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff received medical treatment under the name of “funching of the detailed decision of unknown sexual life at work” from April 3, 2011 to May 5 of the same year and from May 16 of the same year.

On the other hand, Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the party becomes aware of the disposition, etc.," and Article 20 (3) of the same Act provides that "the period stipulated in paragraph (1) shall be a peremptory term." Thus, if the party was unable to comply with the period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she shall be allowed to complete the proceedings and file a lawsuit within 2 weeks from the time when the cause ceases to exist (see Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, the above circumstances asserted by the plaintiff cannot be deemed to constitute "when the period cannot be observed due to a cause not attributable to him/her

3. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it appears to be a mother and is unlawful.

The presiding judge shall be appointed from among the judges;

Judges, real leaves

Judges Kim Jae-young

(i) Sub-president system: volumeing parts generally responsible for a part of manufacturing process to manufacturing officers;

New management techniques introduced by small and medium enterprises to overcome the depression through a sort of contract production method. The parent company is the parent company.

He/she shall have a workplace and production facilities at the production site to the small president, and manage and sell other external affairs except for the supplementation of human resources for production.

The employee who wants to be independent shall be provided with parts to establish a subordinate corporation at a separate place.

It is a fundamental new type of collaboration that is different from the collaborative company and system.