1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for employment promotion subsidy on the ground that he/she employed D, a person who completed the employment success program on April 8, 2016, while operating a wholesale business for medical supplies in Busan, Busan, the Plaintiff received 6750,00 won (=250,000 won x 3 times) from the Defendant on November 1, 2016, and February 7, 2017.

B. Although the Plaintiff employed D on February 23, 2016, the Defendant issued an order to return KRW 6750,000,000,000 for the promotion of illegal supply and demand, and issued an order to additionally collect KRW 13.5 million based on the same fraudulent supply and demand, and imposed a restriction on payment for nine months (9 months from June 28, 2017 to March 27, 2018) on the ground that the Plaintiff received employment promotion subsidy by filing a false report as if he/she was employed after completing the employment promotion program (from March 4, 2016 to April 7, 2016).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2-4, Eul evidence 1-7, and Eul evidence 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The instant lawsuit on the gist of the main defense is unlawful as the lapse of the filing period.

B. According to Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a revocation suit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date when a disposition is known, and in case where a request for administrative appeal is possible, the above period at the time when the request for administrative appeal is filed shall be counted from the date when the original copy of

On the other hand, in order to calculate the period of filing a suit for revocation as of the date of receiving a written ruling, the request for administrative appeal should be lawful.

Where a request for administrative appeal itself is unlawful, such as a request for an administrative appeal after the period for requesting administrative appeal expires, the period for filing an appeal shall not be calculated based on the

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du18786 Decided November 24, 2011). In full view of each of the evidence as seen earlier, Gap evidence No. 23, and Eul evidence No. 14, the Plaintiff’s overall purport of the pleadings and arguments is as follows.