(영문) 부산지방법원 2011.12.9. 선고 2011구합2409 판결

A. The plaintiff is a person who has been engaged in the measurement equipment inspection service business (hereinafter referred to as "original business") with the trade name of 'C Research Institute', which employs four workers on the fourth floor of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City B building.

B. On January 28, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) converted the business from the end of the year (as seen below, the accurate date and time may be in dispute); (b) established a plan for employment maintenance measures to rearrange all the employees of the original business into the new business; and reported to the Defendant on the plan for employment maintenance measures to rearrange all the employees of the original business into the new business; and (c) reported on January 28, 2010 to the Defendant; (d) as the name of the new business establishment “C Research Institute Busan Busan; (d) the location as the third floor E of the D Building in Busan Seo-gu, Busan; (e) the installation cost of the facility as KRW 15 million; (e) the date of completion of the replacement of human resources; and (e) the number of the insured workers transferred as four; and (e) reported on the completion of the replacement of human resources.

C. On March 5, 2010, the Plaintiff met the requirements for payment of the employment maintenance support payment by taking measures for employment security of workers prescribed in Article 21(1) of the Employment Insurance Act through the relocation of human resources, such as the foregoing B B, and applied for the total amount of KRW 18,687,685 from December 2, 2009 to February 2, 2010, but returned for lack of relevant documentary evidence. On June 7, 2010, the Plaintiff again applied for the employment maintenance support payment of KRW 33,512,966 from December 7, 2010 to April 2010.

However, on July 12, 2010, the Defendant rejected the payment of subsidies for employment maintenance (on the ground that the Plaintiff introduced new facilities for business before reporting the plan for employment maintenance measures, and the facilities invested in the new business are merely office fixtures or expendable equipment, not fixed facilities, and they do not qualify as those eligible for employment maintenance support (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7, 8 evidence, Eul 1, 2, 4 through 7 and 9 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(1) Although reporting a plan for employment maintenance measures prior to the implementation of employment maintenance measures is not a requirement for employment maintenance measures, the defendant not only refused the payment of employment maintenance support for the reason that the plaintiff installed new facilities for business prior to the reporting of employment maintenance plans by deeming it as a requirement for payment, but also, even if it is considered as a requirement for payment, the plaintiff submitted a report on the plan for employment maintenance measures to the employee in charge of the defendant on November 10, 2009 and implemented the employment maintenance measures from the next day, thereby satisfying the above payment requirements.

(2) A new project intended to be converted by the Plaintiff is a biochemical wholesale and retail business, and is not required to install the same facilities as machinery, and is only equipped with an office and a collection. Since the office and various facilities equipped by the Plaintiff are necessary for new projects, the requirements for the payment of subsidies for maintaining employment were satisfied.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements to receive subsidies for employment maintenance by taking measures to stabilize employment of workers by redispositioning human resources following the business conversion and installing necessary facilities and equipment.

Article 21(1) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 19(1)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22603, Dec. 31, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act”) stipulate that a business owner whose adjustment in employment is inevitable due to the business conversion following the business fluctuations, industrial structure changes, etc. shall install or maintain facilities or equipment necessary to convert the number of insured workers employed in the previous business into a new business, and shall pay the employment maintenance subsidy in cases where the number of insured workers employed in the previous business is not adjusted to reduce the number of new businesses, and where the former business does not change the number of the insured workers employed in a new business, the payment of the employment maintenance subsidy should be made. In light of such legislative purpose, it is clear that the above subsidy should be based on the premise that the installation of new facilities or equipment needs to be changed to the previous business, as a matter of course, by partially subsidizing the expenses incurred in changing the employment of workers and promoting the vocational ability of workers following the new business (see, e.g.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by Gap's evidence Nos. 10, 11, 3, 8, 10, and 11, and each statement and image of evidence Nos. 3, 8, 10, and 11, and witness F's testimony and arguments, are measurement equipment inspection services, and these chemical organizations are used for physical, chemical properties and analysis. However, this chemical organization as an item of new business is the same as measurement equipment which is the original item of the business, and it is not particularly necessary for the education or training of workers for new business due to the same item of the business, and it is still difficult to view the plaintiff's previous workers to have provided training for new business for the purpose of transferring their arguments and relocating their employees. However, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff still worked for new business with only four previous employees at the time of application for the plan or support for new business, which is the location of the previous business establishment, and it is still difficult to say that the plaintiff still worked for new business for the purpose of removing new employees for the original purpose of the business.

If so, the Plaintiff’s application for subsidies was made without an employment maintenance measure, and thus, the instant disposition rejecting the application is unlawful and lawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s prior report of the plan for employment maintenance measures is not a requirement for subsidies, or the Plaintiff’s prior report was made, without further review, is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.