[2] Where a person entrusted with workplace skill development training (trustee) claims reimbursement of training costs differently from the fact that he/she had received training, and where a trustee or a training teacher, etc. under his/her management and supervision knowingly provided training to a trainee with knowledge of the fact that the causes for expulsion have already occurred, whether it constitutes “any false or other unlawful means” under Article 16(2)2 of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (affirmative)

[3] Whether a trustee entrusted with workplace skill development training by the State, a local government, or the Minister of Labor pursuant to Article 16(1) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers constitutes subject to sanctions under Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (negative)

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while imposing a restriction on entrustment and recognition of three months in the entire course of the instant case and the revocation of the designation of vocational ability development training facilities, the Defendant is aware of the fact that the grounds for the disposition include “management by fraudulent or other illegal means” and “payment of training fees by fraudulent or other illegal means.”

However, Article 16(3) and (6) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter “former Vocational Skills Development Act”); Article 13(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21398, Mar. 31, 2009; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Skills Development Act”); Article 6(3) [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 320, Apr. 1, 2009; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the former Vocational Skills Development Act”); Article 6(3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 2008); Article 16(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act provides sanctions against “where a trustee receives entrustment or termination for less than one year.”

Therefore, the restriction on entrustment and recognition for three months during the entire course of the instant case and the revocation of the designation of a vocational skills development training establishment following such restriction shall be based on the measure criteria for the case where training expenses are at least one million won but less than five million won among the "cases where training expenses are paid or intended to be paid in any false or other unlawful means" and the reasoning of the judgment below does not contain an explicit determination as to whether to recognize the "refiscing management by any false or other unlawful means," and the conclusion of the judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the court below did not err in omission of judgment as alleged in the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 16 (1) of the former Vocational Development Act provides that "the State, local governments, or the Minister of Labor who intends to conduct workplace skill development training under Articles 12 through 15 may conduct workplace skill development training by entering into an entrustment contract with a person prescribed by Presidential Decree." Paragraph (2) provides that "if a person entrusted with workplace skill development training falls under any of subparagraph 1 or 2, the entrustment contract shall be terminated." Paragraph (2) provides that "Where a person entrusted with workplace skill development training falls under any of subparagraph 2, the entrustment contract shall be terminated." Paragraph (3) provides that "the State, local governments, or the Minister of Labor has received or attempted to receive training fees by fraudulent or other illegal means." Paragraph (3) provides that "the State, local governments, or the Minister of Labor shall not entrust workplace skill development training under paragraph (1) and recognize the workplace skill development training course under Article 24 within five years from the date on which the entrustment contract is terminated (excluding where training fees are less than the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree from among the persons whose entrustment contract is terminated due to falling under

"False or other unlawful means" under Article 16 (2) 2 of the former Vocational Development Act refers to all acts that are not correct in social norms in order for a person who is not eligible to receive training costs to see as if he/she is qualified or to conceal the fact that he/she is not qualified, and which may affect the decision-making on the payment of training costs, and "training costs" refers to expenses that the trustee is paid in return for training.

Article 13(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Development Act provides that "any person who has committed an intentional act or gross negligence" shall be considered as one of the matters to be considered when determining the specific measures of a sanction pursuant to the provision of the relevant Act and Article 16(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Development Act. In full view of the content, form, and structure of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, including providing that a person who has committed an intentional act may impose a sanction even if he/she did not have an intention, and the meaning and nature of the training expenses as mentioned above, when a trustee claims the payment of training expenses differently from the fact that he/she had received training due to a violation of the law and the contractual obligation on the separation management, etc. of trainees or contractual obligation, even if the trustee knew that he/she had not received training, it is reasonable to interpret that a person has already received training for a trainee and requested the payment of training expenses in violation of the contract, and thus, it should not be deemed that the contract constitutes an unlawful exercise or supervision."

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted, the lower court acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s implementation of construction machinery driving process from January 25, 2007 to June 18, 2007, which was conducted from the instant private teaching institute, and did not treat Nonparty 1 as absence due to Nonparty 2’s neglect of Nonparty 1’s act of training abroad during the above period, and that Nonparty 1 was paid KRW 3,069,70 equivalent to training expenses for Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 from April 13, 2007 until June 18, 2007 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to attend the above training course, which constitutes “other unlawful methods” and “the Plaintiff was paid KRW 7,00,070 as training expenses for Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 for less than 7 months” and that it did not constitute “the Plaintiff’s failure to pay training expenses for Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 for the aforementioned period, but did not know that it was unlawful due to the Plaintiff’s failure to do so.”

Examining the above legal principles and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the above legal principles and the judgment below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of application of "any false or other unlawful means" as provided by Article 16 (2) 2 of the former Vocational Development Act,

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

Administrative laws and regulations that serve as the basis for sanctions must be strictly interpreted and applied, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the other party to the disposition, and even if a teleological interpretation that takes into account the legislative intent, purpose, etc. is not entirely excluded, such interpretation shall not go beyond the ordinary meaning of the language and text (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du13791, 13807, Feb. 28, 2008, etc.).

Article 35 of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 9315 of Dec. 31, 2008) provides that "the Minister of Labor may order a person who has received or intends to receive support for employment security and vocational skills development programs under this Chapter by fraud or other improper means to restrict such support or to return any subsidy already provided, as prescribed by Presidential Decree (paragraph (1));" and "the Minister of Labor may, when he/she orders a return pursuant to paragraph (1), additionally collect an amount not exceeding the amount paid by fraud or other improper means in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor: Provided, That Articles 16 (5) 1 and 25 (4) 1 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers shall apply mutatis mutandis to a person who conducts workplace skill development training under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the same Act (paragraph (2)).

Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act provides that "a person who has received or intends to receive support for employment security and vocational skills development programs prescribed in this Chapter by fraud or other improper means," and Article 35(2) provides that "a person who conducts vocational skills development training under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers" under the proviso to paragraph (2) refers to a person who conducts or intends to receive support for employment security and vocational skills development programs under the provisions of this Chapter" among "a person who has received or is to receive support for employment security and vocational skills development programs under the provisions of this Chapter" under the provision of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Employment Insurance Act shall be deemed "a person who conducts vocational skills development training under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers" and shall be construed as not receiving support for employment security and vocational skills development programs under the provisions of the " Chapter ゲ Employment Insurance Act" and shall not be subject to sanctions under Article 16(1) of the former Vocational Development Act.

In the same purport, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the one-year disposition of restricting the payment of the instant employment insurance fund support project against the Plaintiff that did not fall under sanctions under Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act was unlawful. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of application under Article 35(1) of

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)