(영문) 전주지방법원 2012.1.10. 선고 2011구합1303 판결

1. The Defendant’s refusal to pay a subsidy for improving employment environment of small and medium enterprises against the Plaintiff on June 7, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is operating a vinyl manufacturer with the trade name of "B" in the following cities: (a) on May 22, 2009, the plaintiff submitted a report on the plan to improve the employment environment of small and medium enterprises (hereinafter referred to as "report on the plan to improve the employment environment of small and medium enterprises") stating 110,00,000 won as the "new construction of dormitories" (hereinafter referred to as "the improvement project of this case"); (b) on the ground that the plaintiff submitted the report on the plan to improve the employment environment of small and medium enterprises (hereinafter referred to as "the report on the plan to improve the employment environment of this case") to 00,000,000 won for the improvement project of the employment environment of this case; (c) on the ground that 00,000 won for the improvement project of the employment environment of this case and 40,000 won for the improvement project of 0,000 won for the improvement project of the employment of this case, the plaintiff already submitted the report to the defendant.

D. On August 31, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on February 8, 2011.

【Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, 4, 12, 14 through 20, Eul’s evidence 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have commenced the employment environment improvement before submitting the report on the plan to improve the employment environment of this case

In order to conclude a new construction contract of all factories including dormitories subject to the improvement project before submitting the report on the plan to improve the employment environment of this case and to raise new funds, the defendant's application for the loan to the Small and Medium Business Corporation constitutes "the case where the improvement of the employment environment was commenced before submitting the plan to improve the employment environment of small and medium enterprises" under Article 7 (6) of the Public Notice of the Rules on the Payment of Subsidies for Improvement of Employment Change of Small and Medium Enterprises (hereinafter "Public Notice"). However, the plaintiff's series of acts that the plaintiff entered into a new construction contract of a factory and applied for new construction funds are only for the establishment of a plastic manufacturing factory, and it is not for the purpose of newly constructing the dormitory of this case, even if the new construction of the dormitory of this case was included in the above construction contract of this case, it is unreasonable to view that the plaintiff immediately started the improvement of the employment environment of this case's new construction project of this case, and it is unlawful to conclude the new construction contract of this case on May 11, 2009.

2) The allegation that Article 7(6) of the instant public notice was unlawful

Article 7(6) of the Notice of this case, which provides that a business owner may not pay subsidies if the business owner started to improve the employment environment before submitting a plan for the improvement of employment environment, is unlawful as it also goes against the purport of the subsidy system that causes unfair consequences between the person who was familiar with the pertinent provision and the person who failed to do so and encourage the improvement of employment environment. Therefore, the Disposition of this case based on

3) The assertion that it goes against the principle of trust protection.

The defendant approved the employment environment improvement plan of this case, thereby enabling the plaintiff to receive subsidies for the improvement of the employment environment, and the plaintiff implemented the improvement project of this case based on the above trust as well as considerable expenses, such as more hiring workers, to meet the requirements for the number of workers who are another requirement of the supply and demand of subsidies. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case against the approval of the original plan for the improvement of the employment environment of this case is unlawful as it goes against the principle of trust protection.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) The purport of the Employment Improvement Support System and the content of the Employment Improvement Support System are the system to encourage employers who have expanded employment opportunities through the improvement of employment environment of small and medium enterprises to create employment by granting subsidies. Article 20 of the former Employment Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 990, Jan. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that the Minister of Labor may provide necessary assistance as prescribed by Presidential Decree to employers who have expanded employment opportunities due to the improvement of the employment environment, change of the form of work, etc. Accordingly, Article 15(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (wholly amended by Act No. 22269, Jul. 12, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that small and medium business owners may install facilities and equipment necessary to improve the employment environment to expand employment opportunities, and that some of the expenses and wages may be provided if increased, to improve the employment environment of small and medium enterprises, the Minister of Labor may delegate the improvement of the employment environment to the business owner’s implementation of the improvement support system.

2) Whether the Plaintiff started improving the employment environment before submitting the report on the plan to improve the employment environment of this case

On the other hand, Article 7 (6) of the Notice of this case provides a contract for the installation of facilities and equipment to "in the case of commencing the improvement of employment environment", and it is reasonable to interpret this meaning to mean that the contract for the installation of facilities and equipment is already commenced (other than this, the plaintiff's assertion to the purport that the construction work based on the construction contract can be deemed to have started, but the improvement of employment environment can not be accepted as it goes against the language and text of the above provision).

However, on May 22, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted a report on the plan to improve the employment environment of this case to the Defendant as mentioned above (the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff submitted a report on the plan to improve the employment environment of this case to the Defendant around April 2009, but there is no objective evidence to acknowledge it). In full view of the purport of the argument in the written evidence Nos. 6 and 21, the Plaintiff was granted a construction permit regarding three new construction of factory buildings including dormitories (including dormitories 92.82m2 and 270m of manufacturing facilities, such as offices, restaurants, lodging houses, etc.) from the Doksan market on March 18, 2008, and the construction permit for new construction of three new factories, including the instant dormitory, including the instant construction project, was newly constructed between the non-party E, and the construction contract was concluded later between the Plaintiff and the newly constructed factory construction project that started to be established in the process of establishing a new dormitory, and thus, the Plaintiff can not be deemed to be the Defendant to be included in the construction permit of the construction contract.

Although it is alleged, there is no ground to interpret it.

Therefore, all other plaintiff's arguments are without merit.

3) Whether Article 7(6) of the Notice of this case is unlawful

However, as seen earlier, Article 7(6) of the former Employment Insurance Act and Article 15(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that where a business owner commences an employment environment improvement such as a contract on the installation of facilities and equipment prior to the submission of an employment environment improvement plan, as a passive requirement for employment improvement support pursuant to delegation of Article 20 of the same Act and Article 15(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a subsidy for improvement may not be paid. This is for the public interest purpose of preventing the business owner of a small and medium enterprise with funds for employment improvement projects from receiving improvement support by abusing the employment environment improvement plan, once the business owner of a small and medium enterprise with funds for conducting the employment improvement project has abused the system and subsequently has adopted an appropriate means for accomplishing the purpose, and there is no ground to deem otherwise contrary to the purport of the employment environment improvement support system. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion of inequality between the Plaintiff and the business owner with knowledge of the above provision and the administrative agency responsible for verifying the payment requirements is not accepted.

4) Whether it violates the principle of trust protection

A) In general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of protection of trust and trust to an act of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the object of trust to an individual, second, the administrative agency should not cause the individual to believe that the statement of opinion is justifiable, second, the individual should have trusted that the name of opinion is well-grounded, third, the administrative agency should have conducted any act contrary to the above statement of opinion. Fourth, the administrative agency's disposition against the above statement of opinion would result in infringing on the individual's interest. When meeting these requirements, the administrative agency's disposition is unlawful as an act contrary to the principle of protection of trust.

B) As to the instant case, the instant disposition should be revoked as an unlawful disposition contrary to the principle of trust protection for the following reasons.

(1) According to the provisions of Articles 4 and 5 of the Notice of this case, a business owner who intends to receive an employment environment improvement subsidy shall submit a written estimate (including a cartag or external appearance drawings, specifications of design drawings and equipment, and specifications of work costs) related to environmental improvement facilities and equipment to the head of the competent local labor office having jurisdiction over which the plan is located in advance. The head of the competent local labor office in receipt of the plan shall examine whether the plan meets the requirements for support and notify the relevant business owner of whether the plan for the improvement of employment environment is approved. In particular, with respect to the business owner (Article 5 subparagraph 4) who fails to meet the requirements for support under this provision, such as where the facilities and equipment to be installed are not eligible for support, the plan for the improvement of employment environment shall not be approved. Thus, the head of the local labor office in receipt of the plan for the improvement of employment has a duty to determine whether the plan meets the requirements for support and notify the business owner thereof.

(2) On the other hand, Article 7(6) of the Notice of this case, which provides for the support requirements for the improvement of employment environment, provides that "where the business owner commences the improvement of employment environment, such as a contract for the installation of facilities and equipment before submitting a plan for the improvement of employment environment, the business owner may not pay the improvement subsidy if it is so." This does not mean that the business owner is unable to pay the subsidy in all cases where the improvement of employment environment, such as the contract for the installation of facilities and equipment, has commenced before submitting the plan for the improvement of employment environment, but gives the head of the local labor office discretion to allow and not pay the subsidy.

(3) As above, the head of a local labor office is obligated to examine the plan in the process of approving the employment environment improvement plan and notify the business owner who fails to meet the requirements for the support of the plan without approving the improvement plan. In light of the fact that the head of a local labor office can decide whether to pay the improvement subsidy even if the business owner starts to improve the employment environment, such as a contract for the installation of facilities and equipment, before submitting the employment environment improvement plan, the head of a local labor office can decide whether to pay the improvement subsidy by discretion. However, if the head of a local labor office approves the improvement plan for the employment environment, even though the business owner already started the improvement of the employment environment such as a contract for the installation of facilities and equipment before submitting the employment environment improvement plan, it is reasonable to view that the above passive requirement should not be considered as the reason for refusing the payment of the employment environment improvement subsidy in question (the above passive requirement should be determined more from the point that the head of a local labor office can sufficiently investigate and determine the environmental improvement report submitted by the head of a local labor office after the completion of the employment improvement plan.

(4) In addition, from the standpoint of a business owner, it is very important to determine whether to approve the employment environment improvement plan in question, and in ordinary cases, it is necessary to protect its trust as it will be obtained by exercising the public opinion of the head of the local labor office with the above contents. (5) However, in the case of this case, on May 11, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a new construction contract on the factory building including the dormitory in this case with E, and submitted the employment environment improvement plan to the Defendant on June 15, 2009, the Plaintiff did not recognize the Plaintiff’s employment environment improvement plan (hereinafter “this case’s approval”), which was based on the Plaintiff’s employment environment improvement plan based on the above reasoning that it would be unlawful for the Plaintiff to refuse the above new construction of the building in this case, based on the public opinion of Gap, No. 8, No. 18, No. 4, No. 6 and No. 7, and the Plaintiff’s opinion that it would be unlawful before the commencement of the construction project in this case’s public opinion and its opinion that it would be unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.