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

가. 원고는 B대학교에서 열공학과 학사학위를, C대학교에서 기계공학과 기계공학전공 석사학위 및 박사학위를 받은 자로서, 기계가공(2급), 공장자동화(2급), 산업설비(2 급), 기계정비(2급), 기계제도(3급), 기계공정설계(3급), 고압가스기계(3급), 차량정비(3 급), 엘리베이터 설치(3급), 열차조자(3급), 중기운전(3급) 동 11개의 직종에 관하여 직업능력개발법상 직업능력개발훈련교사 자격증을 교부받았다. 또한 ① 2000. 6. 2.부터 2002. 11. 8.까지 기계가공, 기계실계, 동력기계 설계 및 제작 분야 가상 실험실 구축 및 운영 등, 연구개발과제 총괄(중소기업청 기술혁신과제, 산학연 컨소시엄과제 등), 부설 기술연구소 관리 등을 사업 내용으로 하는 D 주식회사의 대표이사 및 기술연구소장으로 재직하였고, ② 2005. 2. 21.부터 2006. 3. 1.까지 재단법인 E에서 금형설계공과 기계설계, 기계제도, 금형설계, 전산(컴퓨터응용 가공 및 기계. 동력기계 교과의 교육훈련 및 담임 업무를 담당하는 훈련교사 파장으로 근무하였으며, ( 2007. 7. 2.부터 2009. 7. 26.까지 F 주식회사에서 기계설계, 금형설계 및 제작(기계가공), 동력기계 설계 및 제작, 연구개발과제 총괄(중소기업청 기술혁신 과제, 산학 컨소시엄 과제 등), 부설 기술연구소 관리 등 업무를 담당하는 연구소장으로 재직하였고, ④ 2007. 3. 5.부터 2011. 12. 21.까지 대한상공회의소 G개발원에 소속되어 컴퓨터응용금형설계 기초공학, 인터넷, 기계요소설계, 공유압실습, 용접기초실습, 컴퓨터), 기업협력처공압제어, 전기공압제어(시퀀스)의 각 과목을 담당하는 시간강사로 근무하였고, 3 2008. 8. 11.부터 2009. 6. 26.까지 H대학에서 컴퓨터응용기계설계과(담당과목 금형설계, 모델링실습, 기계제도) 시간강사로 근무하였고, 6 2009. 3. 1.부터 2009. 7. 1.까지 1대학교 기계설계 학과(담당과목 특수정밀가공), 기계설계과(담당과목 기계공작법)의 전임강사로 근무하였고, ① 2009. 3. 2.부터 2011. 2. 28.까지 J대학교에서 역설계, 창의적공학설계, 기계시스템설계, 정밀측정 과목의 각 전임강사로 근무하였고, ③ 2008. 3. 1.부터 2014. 1. 2.까지 K대학교에서 기계공학부(담당과목 재료시험, 전산기초, 기계재료, 금형설계, 유공압공학, 컴퓨터 활용, 도면해독, 산업안전공학, 재료역학, 재료역학, 정역학, CNC가공, 컴퓨터음용) 겸임교수로 근무하였고, : 2012. 3. 1.부터 2012. 8. 31.까지 L대학교에서 제품설계 금형공학과(담당과목 기계제도) 시간강사로 근무하였고, 1① 2013. 8. 26.부터 2013. 12. 7.까지 M대학교에서 메카트로낙스과(담당과목 재료역학) 시간강사로 근무하였고, ① 2014. 3. 3.부터 2014. 6. 13.까지 N대학교에서 기계자동차과(담당과목 기계공 작법) 시간강사로 근무하였고, 1② 2014. 3. 3.부터 2014. 12. 16.까지 대학에서 메카트 로닉스과(담당과목 공유압, 유공압시스템설계, 유공압회로설계실무, 프로젝트실습) 시간 강사로 근무하였고, 11 2014. 3. 1.부터 2015. 2. 28.까지 P전문대학에서 기계과(담당과목 기계공작법, 산업안전공학, 냉동공조) 겸임조교수로 근무하였다.

B. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the issuance of the certificate of qualification for workplace skill development training teachers of Grade III in the field of mechanical skill development training pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act based on the above career experience.

C. On December 5, 2014, the Defendant notified the non-issuance on the ground that the Defendant failed to meet the requirements of subparagraph 2 of Article 28(2) and attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workers’ Vocational Skills (hereinafter “instant disposition”) among the qualifications of class 3 teachers of workplace skill development training under Article 28(2) and attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workers’ Vocational Skills (hereinafter “the Minister of Employment and Labor”) (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Specific grounds are as follows.

A teacher of workplace skill development training refers to a person who is qualified under the Act on the Development of Workers and Vocational Skills among those who can learn workplace skill development training to improve his/her ability to perform his/her duties. In other words, he/she must have the ability to teach with expertise in his/her workplace skill development training.In order to issue a certificate of workplace skill development training, he/she must confirm the relevant ‘visual repair' experience required in the classification of the occupational experience of the "Qualification Standards for Workplace Skill Development Training", and if he/she is not the relevant ‘clock repair experience' experience, he/she must have a similar occupational ability to secure the expertise of ‘visual repair'.As a result of examining the application form for the certificate of workplace skill development training of Class III submitted with thickness and the career, it is difficult to see that He/she has a similar occupational ability to secure the expertise of ‘clock repair' or ‘clock repair' work experience of at least three years.Therefore, he/she is notified that he/she has not been issued due to the lack of education, training and work experience for at least three years, and thereafter he/she applies for the relevant schedule thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, 6, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since the plaintiff has obtained a master's degree in the field of machinery, the number of years of working experience is against all the education and training experience or working experience in accordance with the standards of qualification for teachers of workplace skill development training (Public Notice of High Number 4).In addition, according to the standards for setting problems of national technical qualification repair technician, the practice and education and training experience of the plaintiff in the field of machinery are almost identical to the theoretical education and training in the field of visual repair (e.g., the education and training experience of the plaintiff's industrial safety engineering in the subjects of "City Maintenance Act and Safety Management", the "examination of machinery materials", the "dynamic material", the "regular education and training experience", the "working experience of the plaintiff in the field of visual inspection", the "working experience of the above-mentioned manufacturing performance test", the "working experience of the person's machine design", the "working experience of the person's machine system design", the "working experience of the person's work experience" and the "working experience of the research and training field" should be included in the "working performance test.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 33(2) of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act provides that a person who intends to become a teacher of workplace skill development training shall meet the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree and obtain a certificate of workplace skill development training from the Minister of Employment and Labor. Article 28 and [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a teacher of workplace skill development training shall be classified into Grade 1, 2, and 3. When converting his/her career experience, 100% of the education and training experience or work experience or work experience or work experience in the same occupation as that of the teacher of workplace skill development training to acquire, and 70% of the qualification experience or work experience or work experience or work experience in similar occupation to the one of the occupational categories to which he/she intends to acquire shall be determined and announced by the Minister of Employment and Labor. Accordingly, Article 33(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the qualification standards for workplace skill development training teachers (which shall be referred to as “workplace 10, 2014, 2014-3.

2) Based on the above relevant laws, the health care unit and the Plaintiff’s career cannot be deemed to constitute “education and training experience or practical experience in the instant issues provisions” for the following reasons. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and there is no other error of law that deviates from or abused discretion in the instant disposition.

A) The term "education and training experience" is an educational institution with at least secondary schools under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and in accordance with laws and regulations.

Workplace skill development training institutions or education and training institutions (the Korea Institute of Science and Technology established in accordance with the Korea Advanced Institute Act and the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Regulations), workplace skill development training institutions or education and training institutions (private teaching institutes established with authorization or registration from the competent authority in accordance with the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons, and training facilities established with authorization or registration from the heads of local employment and labor offices in accordance with the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons, and with authorization from the heads of local employment and labor offices in accordance with the Act on the Development of Workers' Vocational Skills, etc.) which are directly established, shall mean workplace skill development training institutions or education and training institutions, or work experience as teachers, teachers and teaching staff, or teaching staff in corporations established in local governments or Acts and subordinate statutes, and working experience in applying, manufacturing, manufacturing, operating, repairing, maintaining, collecting, inspecting, etc. with skilled skills in the relevant field of work.

B) However, workplace skill development training is conducted to acquire and improve "working ability necessary for direct admission to workers." Considering that workplace skill development training's role is occupational ability training for workers, it should be the same as or similar to that for which the workplace skill development training certificate is issued. On the other hand, the relevant statutes provide that workplace skill development training shall be recognized as work experience for the change of education decoration or work experience in similar occupational categories as the one for which the workplace skill development training certificate is issued. In addition to the qualification certificate in the relevant field, the purpose of the relevant statutes is to encourage the acquisition of the qualification certificate in neighboring areas so that it can be flexibly cope with changes in new occupational categories such as integration or differentiation with neighboring areas required by the market, reorganization, etc. Therefore, if it is similar to the relevant occupational category, it is simply necessary to substitute or supplement part of the relevant occupational field rather than just the content that serves as the basis of the relevant occupational category (the relevant occupational category, which can be applied to the relevant occupational category) but also the contents that can be seen as the basis of the Plaintiff's career or work experience in the mechanical field.

C) In particular, the field of machinery is subdivided into 12 categories under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. As the career recognition criteria for workplace skill development training teachers in the same and similar categories of work are subdivided, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s work experience should be an area of education, training and work experience, including field of 11 kinds of work except visual repair, and that the same occupation group and similar category of work are heavy, and that part of the same occupation is entered as similar type of work in different kinds of work, and there is no room for double consideration in the recognition of work experience in the detailed field of machinery. However, in the case of visual repair work, there is no separate qualification certificate in the field of 1 field of vision repair, and there is no different category of work experience as well as other similar field of work that is recognized as the same field of work. However, the Plaintiff’s work experience should not be considered in the field of machinery, including field of clock, and it is not considered that the Plaintiff’s general field of work can easily be considered in the field of machinery (which is considered in the field of machinery).

D) There is no ground to view that two years in the number of years until the completion of a master’s degree in the field of machinery is included in the above education and training experience or work experience as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the qualification criteria for vocational ability development training instructors (attached Table 4) claimed by the Plaintiff is related to the training under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, which is a single requirement required by the pertinent issues clause, i.e., training under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, which

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jae-il

Judges Preferential-hun

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.