1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff's sales in November 2015, when 43 workers work for a company that mainly manufactures food manufacturing and processing business, etc., has been significantly decreased compared to the previous sales in 2015, and the suspension of operation was inevitable.

On December 10, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a report on a plan for employment maintenance (temporary retirement) with respect to 35 employees on December 10, 2015, in order to overcome business difficulties with public support without reducing the number of employees. On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a written application for employment maintenance (temporary retirement) with the purport that he/she paid temporary retirement allowances to the Defendant on January 20, 2016. On January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff received KRW 29,266,180 as subsidies, which amount to 2/3 of the total amount of the temporary retirement allowances for the said employees from January 11, 2016 to January 10, 2016, the Plaintiff continued to reduce the sales amount due to his/her temporary retirement from January 26, 2016 to January 26, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the date the Plaintiff received the said temporary retirement”).

On March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a written application for employment maintenance support (temporary retirement) to the Defendant to the effect that he/she paid temporary retirement allowances pursuant to the aforementioned plan. On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff received KRW 26,456,470 equivalent to 2/3 of the total amount of temporary retirement allowances for 37 persons other than B retired on February 19, 2016 among the above eligible persons.

On June 24, 2016, the Defendant received information from the Plaintiff’s retired workers C that there was an employee who was on leave of absence every day during the Plaintiff’s temporary retirement period, and as a result of an investigation against the Plaintiff’s representative director, etc., six persons who were on leave of absence in the first place were on duty during the period of temporary retirement and 37 persons other than the Plaintiff’s B during the second temporary retirement period except for the retirement workers.