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

A. As the representative of the 'B' of the Elderly Medical Center for the Aged, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for workplace skill development training with the non-party C’s D Campus (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party C’s college") and the non-party C’s college entered into a contract for workplace skill development training with its employees from March 20, 208 to April 24, 2008.

B. On August 14, 2008, the non-party university applied for expenses for workplace skill development training with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, and received subsidies of KRW 70,436, Sept. 9, 2008. The above training expenses included KRW 70,436, which is the Plaintiff’s employee,. The Defendant handled that the Plaintiff was unable to participate in the instant training course from April 21, 2008 to April 25, 2008, and received training expenses by falsity or other unlawful means (amended by Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter referred to as “former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act”) by restricting the Plaintiff’s payment of training expenses from KRW 30,436, Sept. 16, 208; hereinafter referred to as “the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act”) and Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10651, Sep. 18, 2008; hereinafter referred to as “former Enforcement Decree”).

D. On August 8, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on February 7, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

(a) an application for training allowances for E and F is limited to the number of rooms generated due to business linkage and failure to work, which is not by fraud or other improper means;

B. The enforcement decree of this case is null and void by exceeding the bounds of delegation under Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, or by excessively infringing the Plaintiff’s property right.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff participated in the business of sending overseas training once a year to the excellent staff of the elderly facility who is the subject of the “Eg of an incorporated association” and selected E and F as participants in training in 2008, and accepted F and E’s training and business trip around April 14, 2008.

B. E and F, included in the list of trainees of the instant training course, left Korea to undergo overseas training from April 21, 2008 to April 25, 2008, and did not attend the instant training course. Of the attendance register (Evidence B No. 3) of the instant training course, those who signed on the name column of E and F are not E and F, but E and H’s employees in charge of education.

C. On August 14, 2008, the non-party university delegated by the Plaintiff and submitted to the Defendant a false statement of the completion of the training as if the E and F were to have completed the training course (No. 2-3), along with the list of the completion report (No. 2-3), and the Defendant paid the support fund for belief and training to the non-party university delegated by the Plaintiff with the right to receive training fees.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

5. Determination

A. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2. A

(1) Sanction against violation of administrative regulations is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of administrative regulations to achieve administrative purposes, and thus, barring any special circumstance, such as where a failure to perform the duty is not caused by an intentional act or negligence, it may be imposed even on the violator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du5972, May 26, 2000; 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003; 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003). "False or other unlawful means" means any unlawful act conducted by an unqualified business owner in order to conceal the eligibility for payment or non-qualified qualification for payment of incentives for promotion of new employment, which may affect the decision-making on the payment of incentives for promotion of employment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Du42727, Jun. 11, 2009; 2005Du927, Feb. 27, 2005).

(2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned evidence and recognized facts, i.e., (i) it is essential to keep the attendance record as the Plaintiff’s employees are paid according to the attendance, and (ii) make false statements on the attendance record as the Plaintiff’s employees did not participate in the instant training course; (iii) the instant training course was conducted at the Plaintiff’s place of business and the trainee was merely 13, which makes it easy for the Plaintiff to attend the training course; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the training course was due to the Plaintiff’s appointment of E and F as an overseas trainee; thus, it is reasonable to deem that E and F were not present in the training course before applying for the training subsidy. In light of the fact that, even if the Plaintiff was unaware of it, it could have been sufficiently known if he did not paid due care, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2.B.

(1) Whether the parent law is out of the scope of delegation

Article 35 (1) of the former Employment Insurance Act provides that the Minister of Labor may restrict support to a person who has received or intends to receive support from vocational skills development projects by fraud or other improper means, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and may order him/her to return the support already provided. In light of the purpose and purport of vocational skills development projects and the content thereof, it is reasonable to deem that the Minister of Labor delegates to the Presidential Decree whether the Minister of Labor should have to issue a restriction on support or an order to return the support, and therefore, the provision of the Enforcement Decree of the case does not exceed the delegation scope under Article 56 of the former Employment Insurance Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du6105, Oct. 27, 2006

(2) Whether it violates the principle of excessive prohibition

The enforcement decree of this case does not grant any kind of incentives, etc. to a person who has received or intended to receive incentives, etc. by fraud or other improper means, regardless of whether they are related to false or other improper means, and if they have been paid by mistake, it is reasonable to deem that the provision of this case is a provision that has been prepared to achieve the purpose of sanctions against unjust recipients of incentives, etc., by ordering the return thereof if they were paid by mistake, and to achieve the purpose of preventing unjust payments of future incentives, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du6476, Aug. 20, 2009).

As above, the enforcement decree of this case is just and its purpose was limited to one year, not for a long period of time, in a way to achieve its purpose, and thus, the infringement of property rights was limited to a minimum limit. The necessity of the public interest to strictly control and manage the payment of subsidies for the establishment of employment insurance finance and the efficient and transparent operation of the support system is greater than the private interest infringed upon by the restriction on payment of subsidies. If the fact that the payment of subsidies was received through false or other unlawful means was discovered, the subsidy was not paid for one year during the restriction period of payment if it was found that the fact was found that the fact was delayed, and the restriction on the scope of return of the subsidy was not a whole of the subsidy paid for one year during the restriction period of payment, but a part of the subsidy was found to be more favorable, and thus it does not violate the principle of excessive prohibition. In light of the above, the enforcement decree of this case cannot be deemed to violate the principle of excessive prohibition.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

6. Conclusion

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

Judges Kim Yong-nam

Judges Choi Jae-in

A person shall be appointed.