1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 2016 to August 2017, 2017, if the Plaintiff’s contractual work hours were to be reduced from 40 hours a week to 20 hours a week and the wage reduction wage was introduced, the Plaintiff applied for the subsidies for wage peak system, and the Plaintiff was also subject to reduction of working hours by 30% or more of wages in the same purport and applied for subsidies for reduction of working hours.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant paid the amount of KRW 9,600,000 for the employer’s subsidy to Sejong, while paying KRW 14,400,000 for the employee’s subsidy to the Plaintiff.

C. However, on October 20, 2017, based on the Plaintiff’s cell phone call details, etc., the Defendant revealed that the Plaintiff only worked as a franchise and did not have worked for 20 hours a week at his/her workplace. On November 3, 2017, the Defendant issued an order to return subsidies of KRW 14,400,000 and issued an additional collection of KRW 28,80,000,000 as subsidies to the Plaintiff on November 3, 2017 pursuant to Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 78(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule thereof.

(The plaintiff returned the subsidy of KRW 14,400,00. D.

Meanwhile, according to Article 28-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, in order to receive the subsidy for the wage peak system for the reduction of working hours, ① workers aged 5 or older who have been continuously employed for 18 months or more, ② the fixed working hours per week are reduced from 15 hours to 30 hours by the introduction of the wage peak system, ③ the wage reduction by 30% or more of the fixed working hours per week should be

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry B in Evidence Nos. 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether a disposition for additional collection is lawful.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely a mistake that the Plaintiff, while working in Sejong school from April 2013, reduced working hours and salary to 50%, received employment subsidy to 14,400,000 won, and did not request the confirmation of the attendance at the work record book and did not affix the seal directly. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is merely a mistake that did not request the confirmation of the attendance at work.