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

1) 원고는 2010. 8. 11. 직업능력개발 위탁교육업체인 챌린지러닝코리아 주식회사 (이하 '챌린지러닝코리아'라 한다)와 인터넷원격훈련 위탁계약을 체결하고, 챌린지러닝 코리아에 2010. 8. 11.부터 2010. 9. 10.까지 원고의 근로자 50명에 대한 '잘 나가는 상사의 비밀노트, 시크릿(성공을 위한 긍정의 힘)'의 교육(이하 '이 사건 교육'이라 한다)을 위탁하였다.

2) 원고는 2010. 8. 13. 이 사건 훈련기관에 이 사건 교육에 대한 교육훈련비로 3,860,000원을 계좌이체하고 같은 내용의 세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 세금계산서'라 한다)를 교부받았고, 2010. 10. 1. 챌린지러닝코리아로부터 그중 970,400원을 환불받고 그에 대한 세금계산서를 교부받았다.

3) 원고는 2010. 10. 11. 피고에게 사업주 위탁 교육훈련비 3,860,000원에 대하여 아래와 같이 교육운영 개요 및 교육결과 보고를 기재하여 지원금을 신청하면서, 훈련비용 증명서류로 이 사건 세금계산서를 제출하고, 훈련수료 증빙서류로 챌린지러닝코 리아로부터 2010. 9. 27. 교부받은 수료증서 등을 제출하였다. 교육운영 개요

A person shall be appointed.

○ Report on the result of education

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

4) On November 30, 2010, the Defendant approved the remainder of the support amount of KRW 2,384,290, 9,642,360 from 7,258,065, which was the amount that was deducted from the annual support limit against the Plaintiff from the amount that was paid to the Plaintiff, as the subsidy, and supported the Plaintiff on December 1, 2010.

1) 광주지방경찰청 사이버수사대는 2013. 1. 29. 챌린지러닝코리아를 포함한 2개의 훈련기관이 2010년 1월경부터 2011년 10월경까지 고용노동부에서 주관하는 인터넷 직업능력개발훈련을 실시하면서 1,114개의 교육위탁업체와 '선지원' 등 부정한 방식으로, 교육비 거래를 하고, '자동진도, '강제수료' 기능을 이용하여 성적 등을 조작하고 부정하게 훈련을 수료시켜주는 범죄를 저질렀다는 수사결과를 발표하고, 이를 광주지방고 용노동청 여수지청 등에 통보하는 한편 관련 부정수급 사업장명단 등을 송부하였다.

2) The surplus earnings and expenses of the Gwangju Regional Employment Agency sent to the Defendant a list of illegal receipt and demand places of business including the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant to take measures in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations.

3) On July 18, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff, applying Article 25(4) and (5) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 1037, May 31, 2010); Article 9(1) and (2) 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. 324, May 12, 2009); applying Article 56(2) and (3) 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. 324, May 12, 2009; Article 22-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff applied for expenses, along with fraudulent trading and false statements, based on the materials completed by the training institution using the automatic training program.”

4) The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on July 25, 2013, but was dismissed on October 29, 2013.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2, 6, 12 evidence, Eul 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

원고는 ① 챌린지러닝코리아와의 위탁계약에 따라 훈련비용을 지급하고 이후 과다 책정된 위 훈련비용의 일부를 환급받았을 뿐 챌린지러닝코리아와 부정거래하고 훈련비용을 지원 신청하지 않았고, ② 원고의 근로자들은 성실히 교육을 받았을 뿐만 아니라 자동진도프로그램이 무엇인지도 알지 못하고 필요 이수시간이 1,200분이라는 것도 몰랐으므로 원고가 거짓 수료자임을 알고서도 이를 근거로 훈련비를 지원신청한 것도 아니다.

Therefore, the Plaintiff did not receive training costs from the Defendant by fraud or other improper means.

2) 비례의 원칙 위배챌린지러닝코리아는 피고가 인터넷원격훈련 위탁업체로 공인한 기관이므로 원고는 이를 신뢰할 수밖에 없었고, 원고의 직원들이 자동진도프로그램으로 허위 교육을 받았음을 전혀 알지 못하였다. 그럼에도 피고는 이러한 사정을 고려하지 아니하고 부정수급액의 반환명령 및 같은 금액의 추가징수를 명하는 이 사건 처분을 하였으므로, 이는 비례의 원칙에 반하여 위법하다.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the non-existence of grounds for disposition

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 20(1) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers") provides that a business owner who conducts workplace skill development training may subsidize expenses incurred by the Minister of Employment and Labor, and Article 55(2) of the same Act provides that a business owner may restrict subsidies if he/she received subsidies by fraud or other improper means. Article 56(2) and (3) of the same Act provides that a return of the amount of subsidies received by fraud or other improper means may be ordered, and the amount of subsidies not exceeding the amount of subsidies may be additionally collected, and the "false or other improper means" provided for in the above provision refers to any fraudulent act conducted by an unqualified business owner in order to pretend the eligibility to be paid or to conceal the lack of eligibility to receive training costs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4272, Jun. 11, 2009).

Meanwhile, Article 20(1) and (3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act and Article 19(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the Minister of Employment and Labor may subsidize expenses incurred in conducting workplace skill development training (including cases where workplace skill development training is conducted on commission) by employers who conduct workplace skill development training, and Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the scope of subsidies for workplace skill development training expenses, etc., upper limit of subsidies and support procedures and other matters necessary for support shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. Article 41(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the amount equivalent to part of training expenses, etc. subsidized pursuant to Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act shall be based on the amount calculated according to the support standards determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Employment and Labor, taking into account the types of training, trainees

Article 8(1)2 of the former Regulations on Assistance for Vocational Skills Development (amended by the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 201-73, Dec. 30, 201) provides that “All evaluation performances shall be at least 60 points, the rate of learning achievement shall be at least 80/100, and the same shall meet the standards for completion established by a training executor in addition to the above two requirements.” Article 11(1) provides that subsidies shall be granted in cases where an employer entrusts distance training to employees, etc., within the scope of the amount calculated by multiplying the number of trainees who completed the relevant training course by the number of trainees under Article 5(2) (attached Table 4), and the amount of subsidies shall be deemed to be partially 80/10 (10/100 in cases of preferentially supported enterprises) of the training expenses paid to an entrusted training institution for vocational skills development training, which is normally entrusted to an entrusted training institution for each worker’s vocational skills development training.”

In addition, Article 22 [Attachment 6-2] 1. A. 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers according to delegation of Article 55(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that if a person intends to obtain subsidies or loans by fraud or other improper means or has already received such subsidies or loans, it shall be restricted, but there is no intention or gross negligence, it shall be reduced by up to 1/2 of the standards set forth in the individual standards so that sanctions may be imposed even if the violator does not have intention.

Considering the content, form, system, etc. of the provision of the relevant disposition-based legislation, where an employer who entrusted Internet remote training to an entrusted training institution applies for subsidization of training expenses by stating an amount higher than the actual training expenses paid to the entrusted training institution, or where an employer applies for subsidization of training expenses differently from the fact that the training course was completed even if a trainee failed to meet the completion standards, it should be noted that the employer falls under “any false or other unlawful means” even if he/she was unaware of such fact.

B) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff applied for subsidies by submitting a false tax invoice, etc. to the Defendant and received training costs unfairly.

위 법리에 비추어 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 든 증거의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고는 챌린지러닝코리아에 실제로 2,889,600원만을 훈련 비용으로 지급한 것임에도, '잘 나가는 상사의 비밀노트'의 1인당 훈련비 100,000원, '시크릿(성공을 위한 긍정의 힘)'의 1인당 훈련비 70,000원을 기준으로 총 교육비 3,860,000원의 이 사건 교육을 운영하고, 위 금액의 총 교육비를 수강료로 지급하였다는 내용의 교육운영 개요 및 교육결과 보고와 훈련비 명목으로 3,860,000원을 지불하였다는 취지의 이 사건 세금계산서를 첨부하여 지원금을 신청한 점, ② 위 신청 시 원고는 챌린지러닝코리아로부터 970,400원을 환불받은 사실을 피고에게 알리지 않았고, 환불 세금계산서도 제출하지 아니한 점, ③ 챌린지러닝코리아가 원고를 대신하여 신청서 등을 작성·제출하였다고 하더라도 원칙적으로 원고에게 훈련비용 지원금 신청 여부의 판단 및 신청서 제출에 대한 책임이 있는 점, ④ 피고는 원고가 챌린지러닝코리아에 실제로 지급한 훈련비와 신청서에 기재된 훈련비가 다르다는 사실을 알았더라면 원고에게 직업능력개발훈련 훈련비용을 지원하지 않았을 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하면, 원고는 허위 세금계산서 등을 제출하여 지원금을 신청하고 직업능력개발 훈련비용을 부당하게 수령한 것이라고 봄이 상당하다.

C) Next, we examine whether the Plaintiff employees meet the completion requirements.

앞서 든 증거의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고와 계약을 맺은 챌린지러닝코리아가 교육관리시스템(LMS)에 훈련생들 이 교육사이트에 접속을 하지 않더라도 최소 1회 로그인만 하면 이후 훈련생들이 교육사이트에 접속하지 않더라도 자동으로 학습 진도율이 올라가는 '자동진도' 기능 및 전체 관리자가 '수료하기' 메뉴를 실행시키면 학습시간과 평가점수가 수료 가능한 범위 내 값으로 변경되는 '강제수료' 기능을 탑재하여 데이터를 조작한 사실이 발각된 점, ② 교육비용을 지원받기 위해서는 1,200분의 필요이수시간이 필요하나 이 사건 교육을 수강한 원고 직원 중 A을 제외한 나머지 직원들 모두는 수강시간 1,200분(그 중 절반 이상은 300분) 미만의 수강시간을 기록하여 학습진도율 80% 이상이라는 수료기준을 충족하지 못한 점을 고려하면, 이 사건 교육을 수강한 원고 직원들 중 A을 제외한 나머지 직원들은 인터넷원격훈련과정의 지원금 지급을 위한 수료요건을 충족하였다고 볼 수 없다.

라) 그렇다면 원고는 챌린지러닝코리아에 지급한 실제 훈련비용보다 높은 금액을 기재하여 훈련비용의 지원을 신청하거나 원고의 직원들 중 49명이 수료기준을 충족하지 못하였음에도 그들이 훈련과정을 수료한 것처럼 사실과 다르게 비용의 지원을 신청하여 훈련비용을 지원받은 것이므로, 이는 '거짓 그 밖의 부정한 방법'에 해당한다.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

2) As to the assertion on the violation of the principle of proportionality

In addition to the whole purport of oral argument, the following circumstances are revealed: ① Workplace skill development training is conducted in order to improve the employee's ability to perform his/her duties, so that the trainee's application for evaluation and completion should be thoroughly made in order to prevent unfair payment of training expenses; ② the act of applying for subsidies based on false evidence constitutes a serious violation of the purpose of the workplace skill development training system itself, which makes it clear that the purpose of the workplace skill development program itself is unrealistic; ② the act of applying for subsidies based on false evidence constitutes a serious violation of the purpose of the workplace skill development program; and the damage should go back to the employee if it is neglected to impose sanctions on illegal receipt; ③ the obligation to check whether the application for subsidies for training expenses is applied for training expenses and to verify whether the application is false when submitting the application; and (iv) the defendant does the disposition of this case within the scope prescribed by the Workplace Skill Development Act, etc., it is difficult to view that the defendant violated the principle of proportionality.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-young

Judges Kang Young-young

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.