The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment to this court as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant's additional decision in this court asserts that "(1) The Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act, which is a law based on the establishment of the fund as stipulated in Paragraph (1) [Attachment Table 2] of Article 5 of the National Finance Act, or the State or local government may subsidize all or part of the expenses incurred therein to the person who conducts the employment promotion business for disabled persons, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Accordingly, the defendant can provide a subsidy to the person who conducts the employment promotion business. As such, the defendant constitutes a person who manages and operates the fund as stipulated in Article 2 Paragraph 1 of the Subsidy Management Act. (2) According to the evidence submitted by the defendant, the defendant argues that the plaintiff's each disposition in this case is legitimate since the return of each subsidy in this case and the improvement order recognized unfair acts related to the use of the subsidy

The above arguments presented by the Defendant in the first instance court do not differ from the contents of the Defendant’s assertion. While examining the evidence submitted by the first instance court in addition to the evidence (Evidence No. 23), the reasons cited earlier (in particular, ① the grounds cited earlier (Article 5(1) [Attachment 2] of the National Finance Act) are not Article 78 of the Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act and Article 68 of the Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act, and Article 68 of the Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act (Establishment of Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation Fund for Disabled Persons) is not Article 78 of the Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act as the Defendant claims, the Minister of Employment and Labor has set up