2015Guhap3065 Revocation of Disposition of Disposition to promote the establishment of a new job and to receive a refund;

A

The Head of Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office Seoul Southern Site

July 23, 2015

August 27, 2015

1. On November 24, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition to recover the creative and start-up promotion allowances rendered against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties B, C, and D shall be revoked in entirety.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

On November 24, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to recover 2 million won for each of the allowances paid to the Plaintiffs on the ground that: (a) although the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the appointed parties B, C, and D (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) had not actually worked as an intern in an internship, the Defendant filed a false application for creation and business start-up promotion allowances and received payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiffs were to make and deliver passbooks and cards by deceiving E, F, etc., and they asserted to the effect that the plaintiffs did not have filed an application for the creative or start-up promotion allowances in this case or received allowances.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 30 of the Subsidy Management Act (Revocation of Decisions to Grant Subsidies in Violation of Acts and Subordinate Statutes)

(1) Where a subsidy program operator falls under any of the following cases, the head of a central government agency may revoke all or part of the decision to grant a subsidy:

1. Where he/she has used subsidies for other purposes;

2. Have violated statutes, the details of the decision to grant subsidies, or the dispositions of the head of a central government agency;

3. Where he/she has received subsidies by making a false application or by other unlawful means;

(2) Where an indirect subsidy program operator falls under any of the following cases, the head of a central government agency may fully or partially revoke his/her decision to grant subsidies related to the indirect subsidy program operator:

1. Where he/she uses an indirect subsidy for other purposes;

2. Where it violates statutes;

3. Where he/she receives an indirect subsidy by filing a false application or by other wrongful means;

(3) Article 19 shall apply mutatis mutandis where a decision to grant subsidies is revoked pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2).

Article 33-2 (Recovery, etc. of Subsidies to Subsidy Recipients)

(1) Where a relevant subsidy recipient falls under any of the following cases, the relevant subsidy program operator or indirect subsidy program operator shall order him/her to fully or partially refund the subsidy paid within a specified period:

1. Where he/she has received subsidies by filing a false application or by other unlawful means;

2. Where it is used for any purpose other than the payment of subsidies;

3. Where he/she fails to meet the requirements for receiving subsidies.

C. Determination

An appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition has the burden of proving the legitimacy of the pertinent disposition to the Defendant, who is the disposition agency claiming the lawfulness of the pertinent disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du12937, Jan. 1, 2007). The Defendant, the disposition agency, must prove the fact that the Plaintiffs received subsidies by false application or other unlawful means.

The following circumstances, i.e., Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and 9, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments, i.e., ① establishing the closure compliance of corporation G, etc. in collusion with F, etc. around 2010 and joining the above company by false persons, etc., and the H Association (the Minister of Employment and Labor entrusted with the creative internship business) received the internship subsidy from the H Association (E, F, etc.) and obtained the constructive and systematic internship subsidy by using the H Association’s one head office, etc., and Eul did not appear to have been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to detention in the above case). ② It appears that the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the appointed parties B were to have received the passbook and card upon their request, and there appears to have been no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiffs' fraudulent promotion or delivery of the passbook to the designated parties in the name of the passbook No. 4 in the name of the above case.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge and the assistant judge;

Judges Lee Do-young

Judges Kim Jae-sung

A person shall be appointed.