[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

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

A. The Plaintiff, a company running the taxi passenger vehicle transport business, entered into an entrustment contract with B or C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "D") that is an enterprise recognized as the course of vocational skills development training for workers, as shown below, for vocational training by means of remote training for its employees (hereinafter referred to as "the instant training", and some of them are indicated as "Class 1 training" according to the sequence), and received subsidies in total as shown in the table of "a request for subsidies" on the premise that the trainees received the instant training and completed the standard completion for the payment of subsidies for remote postal training (hereinafter referred to as "subsidies") in normal terms, and that the trainees meet the standard completion for the payment of subsidies for remote postal training (hereinafter referred to as "subsidies").

A person shall be appointed.

* The indication of the corporation is omitted.

B. On June 15, 2017, the Defendant: (a) filed an administrative appeal with the Human Resources Development Service of Korea without undergoing the instant training; (b) filed an application for subsidies; and (c) filed an administrative appeal with the Human Resources Development Service of Korea; and (d) filed a request with the competent administrative appeals commission under Article 5(2) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 13902, Jan. 27, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “former Act”); and (b) Article 22 and [Attachment 6-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act”); (c) Article 55(2) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 13902, Jul. 28, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Rule of the Act”); (d) Article 25(3) of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills of Workers of Korea.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, 7 through 12, Eul's 1 through 9, and 11 (including branch numbers for those with an abnormal number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In most cases, the trainees of this case completed the instant training course with the help of D’s employees as a normal course, and met the completion standards, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received subsidies by fraud or other improper means (the absence of objective grounds for disposition).

2) The instant training course conducted by commissioned education is entirely managed by D. The Plaintiff merely believed D’s explanation that trainees undergo normal training and meet the completion standards and did not have any other means to verify whether they meet the completion standards. Thus, there is no reason for the Plaintiff to be responsible for the breach of duty (the existence of justifiable grounds, which cannot be caused by breach of duty).

3) In light of the aforementioned circumstances and the fact that the Plaintiff conspireds to commit the crime with D or did not participate in the crime, the Plaintiff paid full subsidies from the Human Resources Development Service of Korea as training fees to D, and there was no benefit in relation to subsidies, and if the trainee did not complete the normal training and failed to meet the completion standards, the Defendant is also liable for the negligence of supervision. In light of the above, the disadvantage that the Plaintiff suffered due to the instant disposition is too large compared to the public interest to be achieved by the instant disposition.

(Violation of the Principle of Holiday)

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination2

1) Whether there exist objective grounds for disposition

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 55(2), Article 56(2), and Article 56(3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act refers to active and passive acts that may affect the decision-making on subsidization of expenses, in general, with an intention to encourage a person who is not eligible to receive subsidization as if he/she were eligible or to conceal an unqualified fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1980, Oct. 30, 2014).

Article 20(3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 19(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27393, Jul. 26, 2016); Article 41(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28160, Jun. 27, 2017); Article 60(1) of the former Regulations on Assistance to Vocational Skills Development (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 2015-114, Dec. 31, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "former Regulations on Assistance"); Article 2 subparag. 11 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills Skills of Workers; Article 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills of Workers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27393); Article 8(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills of Workers shall be evaluateded by 6.

In addition, in an administrative litigation to which the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act apply mutatis mutandis, the burden of proof is, in principle, allocated between the parties in accordance with the general principles of civil procedure, and in the case of an appeal litigation, the defendant who asserts the legality of the disposition is obliged to bear the burden of proof as to the legitimacy of the disposition. However, if there is a reasonable and acceptable proof of the legitimacy of a certain disposition asserted by the defendant, the disposition is justifiable, and the assertion and proof contrary thereto return to the plaintiff, who is the other party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du39156, Jun

In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the facts acknowledged as above and the purport of the entire arguments as to the instant case, the instant trainees did not undergo training, and failed to meet the completion standards, and the Plaintiff’s application for subsidies to the Korea Industrial Complex as if the instant trainees satisfied the completion standards, and there is no counter-proof, and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing the existence of the instant disposition grounds is without merit.

On January 5, 2018, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office (hereinafter "Seoul Central Public Prosecutor's Office") charged G, H, and I as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office: (a) in collusion with inside directors G, head H, and head of division, who are representatives of D, visited trainees into the place of a gold transportation business entity without providing training teaching materials, and made trainees visit the place of a gold transportation business entity to create a ID with personal information of trainees and conduct an agency test; and (b) obtained a total of KRW 1,788,460,90 from the Republic of Korea by creating the appearance of trainees who meet the completion standards through the method of conducting a proxy lottery; and (c) obtained the appearance of those who met the completion standards; and (d) obtained the subsidy paid to the Plaintiff.

In the instant case, the Defendants led to the confession of all the facts charged, and the said court found Defendant G guilty of the facts charged on April 6, 2018 and sentenced Defendant G to four years of imprisonment, Defendant H and I with prison labor for each of the four years, Defendant H and I, and three years of suspended execution (Evidence No. 8 of the first instance judgment (Evidence No. 8) (No. 14,45, 62, and 88).

Of the judgment of the first instance court, Defendant H and I became final and conclusive because both the Defendants and the Prosecutor did not appeal. Defendant G appealed on April 11, 2018 as Seoul High Court 2018No1112, but only claimed unreasonable sentencing as the grounds for appeal, and the appeal was dismissed on September 20, 2018.

Before filing the prosecution, D employees visited the company that entrusted workplace skill development training to D with workplace skill development training, at the Seoul Western District Office and the investigative agency stated to the effect that they conducted a proxy lecture and a proxy test by creating IDs with the personal information of trainees, and that only once they conducted a so-called interview training to ask questions about a part of the trainees in one form in order to be off the image of proxy lecture and an examination at the time of proxy, and that they did not know that some trainees did not undergo a test, and that they did not know that they completed the training.

The following circumstances have also been confirmed through the result of the analysis of the system for managing the learning of trainees in the instant training, which can be a typical feature of the training course and the vicarious examination.

- The training learning management system in the names of trainees of this case (hereinafter referred to as "rogs") focuses on a specific day and specific time period.

- The creation of ID and passwords necessary for the above trainees to affix their seals is made in the order of name Ghana.

· The percentage taken by a log in the name of another trainee within 10 minutes after the completion of a certain trainee’s condition in the same computer IP address (Internet) is equal to the 1st 94.38%, 2nd 96.01%, 3rd 91.9%, 4th 89.53%, and 15.7 seconds(1), 21.4 seconds(2), 31.1 seconds(3), and 46 second 46 seconds(4) in the name of the trainee. - The average course of study in the name of the trainee is limited to 15.7 seconds(1), 21.4 seconds(2), 31.1 seconds(3), and 46 seconds(4).

2) Whether there is a justifiable reason that is not attributable to the breach of duty

A) Sanction against a violation of administrative laws is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of administrative laws in order to achieve the administrative purpose, and thus, barring any special circumstance, such as where a breach of duty is not caused by an intentional act or negligence, it may be imposed even on the violator, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1297, May 10, 2012). (B) In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged in full view of the health class, the fact of the recognition, and the overall purport of the arguments as to the above evidence, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any justifiable ground for not infringing on the duty of violation.

The Act on the Development of Vocational Skills stipulates that employers shall conduct workplace skill development training for workers, have many workers participate in workplace skill development training, and make efforts to create conditions for workplace skill development training by selecting workers and persons in charge of workplace skill development training (Article 4(2)). The Minister of Employment and Labor provides that employers who conduct workplace skill development training (including cases of conducting workplace skill development training on commission) may provide subsidies or loans for expenses incurred in the business (Article 20(1)1), and that workplace skill development training for workers shall be conducted as the subject of workplace skill development training in the manner of "entrusted training". The same applies where workplace skill development training is conducted in the manner of "entrusted training". Accordingly, the plaintiff is responsible for self-verification of whether the trainees of this case meet the standards for completing the training to receive subsidies prior to applying for subsidies to the Human Resources Development Service of Korea.

Furthermore, the instant training was conducted for the employees belonging to the Plaintiff’s workplace, and thus, the Plaintiff could easily know the process of the training by observing the training course or directly checking the employees. However, the Plaintiff was aware that at least the instant trainees did not undergo training but failed to meet the completion standards.

We seem to think.

3) Whether the principle of proportionality is violated

A) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the relevant disposition, by objectively examining the content of the act of violation as the ground for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant act of disposal, and all relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for a punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance of the Ministry, it is nothing more than that prescribed within the administrative agency’s internal business affairs rules, and thus, it is not effective externally to the public or the court. Thus, the legality of the relevant disposition should be determined not only by the above criteria for disposition but also by the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, the relevant disposition cannot be deemed legitimate as it conforms to the criteria for disposition. However, unless the criteria for disposition do not conform with the Constitution or laws, or there is any reasonable ground to believe that the result of the application of the criteria is considerably unreasonable in light of the content of the act of violation and the purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du646.

B) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts charged to the Plaintiff and the purport of the entire arguments and evidence revealed in the instant case, it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason not to have caused the Plaintiff to breach of duty. Moreover, the instant disposition is more unfavorable than the public interest intended to be achieved by the instant disposition, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition constitutes an excessive harsh case to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

The purpose of workplace skill development training is to contribute to the development of society and economy by facilitating and supporting workplace skill development through the life of workers. The act of receiving workplace skill development training subsidies by fraud or other improper means is to contribute to the stabilization of employment of workers, the improvement of social and economic status, the improvement of corporate productivity, and the realization of a competence-oriented society. Since the act of receiving workplace skill development training subsidies by fraud or other improper means causes the insolvency of the employment insurance fund, and may inflict damage on the insured who paid the employment insurance premium in good

In order to promote the employment security of workers, improvement of social and economic status, and the establishment of the Employment Insurance Fund by operating the workplace skill development training support system fairly and transparently, it seems important for the Plaintiff to not be disadvantaged due to the instant disposition. Even if the ○○ Plaintiff did not fully refund the difference between the training fees paid to D and the subsidies paid from the Human Resources Development Service of Korea, the Plaintiff, a business owner, is obligated to conduct workplace skill development training for workers (Article 4(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act), and the Plaintiff, a business owner, has the duty to conduct workplace skill development training for workers (Article 4(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act), thereby making the Plaintiff enjoy benefit from the improvement of the worker’s vocational ability through the workplace skill development training conducted as above, and the Defendant only subsidized the necessary expenses. Considering these circumstances, it is difficult to evaluate that the Plaintiff suffered damage equivalent to the difference between the training

○ Of the instant disposition, the part regarding the restriction on subsidies and loans is in conformity with the criteria prescribed in Article 22 and attached Table 6-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act, and the part concerning additional collection is in conformity with the criteria prescribed in Article 22-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and it is not deemed that the said criteria are in itself inconsistent with the Constitution or laws, or that the application of the said standards is considerably unreasonable in light

The proviso to Article 6-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills (Attachment Table 6-2) provides that "where there is no intention or gross negligence, or where the degree of violation is minor, a disposition to grant or restrict loans may be taken by reducing the measures within the limit of 1/2 of the standard set by the individual standard." However, the above provision is not only a discretionary mitigation provision, but also a voluntary reduction provision, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiff had an intention to receive illegal loans, and the number of illegal payments reaches five times, 5,534,90 won and the amount of illegal payments reaches 30,534,990 won, so there is no room to apply the above provision to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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

Paragraph 2, Section 2, Section 56(2)1 of the current Act, Section 56(3)2 and 56(5) of the current Act, and the contents of the provisions are as follows.

Since it is substantially identical to that provided by the law, it shall not be indicated separately. The same shall apply hereinafter.

2) The period of sanctions (from June 16, 2017 to June 10, 2018) set forth in the disposition imposing restrictions on subsidies and loans has already been imposed, but the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act has already been imposed.

Article 22 [Attachment 6-2] Article 22 (Attachment 6-2] 1.A.3) takes the history of receiving a restriction on subsidies and loans as the basis of aggravating of future unfavorable measures.

This part of the disposition is lawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du13312, Jan. 11, 2007).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.