1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be stated as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for supplement of judgment under paragraph (2)

Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted as it is.

2. The Defendant asserts that the instant guidelines in the trial are supplementary administrative rules that stipulate specific matters for the implementation of the youth internship project, and that even if there is no explicit delegation provision of the mother law regarding sanctions arising from the illegal receipt of the internship subsidy, it cannot be deemed to go beyond the scope of the parent law’s regulation. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the instant guidelines can be the basis provision for the disposition of this case.

However, as the first instance court properly pointed out, Article 25(2) of the Employment Insurance Act delegates matters necessary for the implementation of the instant project and subsidization of expenses to the Presidential Decree, and Article 36(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act delegates matters concerning the type, content, scope, and level of the insured, etc., the insured, etc., and the method of application to the Minister of Employment and Labor, and does not delegate matters concerning sanctions against illegal receipt.

However, the instant Guideline 1X. 5-1 provides for an indivative administrative act that imposes restrictions on the legal status of the Plaintiff, and thus, should be interpreted as to whether the said provision is within the scope of the mother law’s regulation by applying the principle of statutory reservation.

Therefore, the Guideline 1X.5-1 cannot be deemed to be within the scope of the Employment Insurance Act, the mother corporation, which provides for a punitive administrative disposition without any delegation from the upper law, and therefore, the above Guideline cannot be a basis provision for the disposition of this case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Du10899 Decided April 9, 2015). 3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the instant disposition is reasonable, and ought to be accepted.