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

A. The Plaintiff is operating the C Education Center (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Education Center”) on the 5th floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B building.

B. The Plaintiff was recognized as a training course for the development of vocational skills pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development Act”), as indicated below.

A person shall be appointed.

C. On July 8, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that a new workplace skill development training course is reserved for recognition of the workplace skill development training course, such as measurement and evaluation of human emotional behavior, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was found to have failed to implement the training course as recognized.

D. After conducting an occasional guidance and inspection on the training courses against the instant education institute, the Defendant conducted training in violation of the details recognized to the extent that the Plaintiff violated the purpose of training regarding the material facts of the training course in the course of comprehensive psychological evaluation (in the course of comprehensive psychological evaluation) and comprehensive psychological evaluation. On the ground that the Plaintiff’s recognition of the training course for the above two training courses was revoked, and issued a disposition to order the Plaintiff to return the subsidies received.

E. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of subsidy to the Defendant as indicated below, but the Defendant rendered a site payment disposition on November 12, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the same grounds as indicated in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 9, 10, and 12 evidence, respectively, 1, 2, 3, and 13 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant disposition (Evidence A) does not specify the grounds for the disposition in the instant disposition. 2) In the case of the part concerning the comprehensive psychological evaluation practical process and the comprehensive psychological evaluation practical process among the instant disposition, the Plaintiff conducted the vocational ability development training course as recognized by the Defendant. In addition, there was no violation of the vocational ability development legislation in the case of measuring and evaluating human behavior, and there was no violation of the part concerning the measurement and evaluation of human behavior. Moreover, the validity of the disposition revoking recognition as of August 21, 2015 of the instant disposition was suspended on October 19, 2015, which was prior to the date the instant disposition was issued, by this Court’s decision on October 19, 2015, the notice of reservation to recognize the vocational ability development training course was suspended, and there was no obligation for the Plaintiff to not implement a new training course.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(i) the existence of procedural defects

Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act and Article 14-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that when an administrative agency makes a disposition, the administrative agency shall present the basis and reason thereof (the facts and grounds for the disposition) to the party concerned. This purport is to exclude arbitrary decisions of the administrative agency and allow the party concerned to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure. Accordingly, in full view of the content of the disposition, the relevant statutes and the whole process leading to the disposition, etc., where it is deemed that there was no particular hindrance in moving into the administrative remedy procedure because the party concerned is sufficiently aware of the existence of the grounds and reasons at the time of the disposition, the disposition shall not be deemed unlawful even if the grounds and reasons for the disposition are not specified in the disposition. In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to view that the disposition in question is unlawful even if the Plaintiff did not lawfully state the grounds for the disposition in question, such as the failure to implement the training course or the recognition of a new training course.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

(ii) the existence of the reasons for the action

A) According to the provisions of Articles 19(2) and 56(2) of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills in the practical process of comprehensive psychological evaluation and comprehensive psychological evaluation, the Minister of Employment and Labor may cancel the recognition of the workplace skill development training course and order a person who has obtained recognition of the workplace skill development training course to return subsidies already paid. If a person who has obtained recognition of the workplace skill development training course has violated the details recognized, and has conducted workplace skill development training in violation of the details recognized, it shall be deemed that subsidies may not be granted from the beginning. In light of the overall purport of arguments, the Plaintiff’s performance of the workplace skill development training program in the first instance, including health class, Eul’s evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 4 through 7, 8-1, and 2, provided that the Plaintiff’s performance of the workplace skill development training program in the first instance constitutes a lawful workplace skill development training program in violation of Article 19(2)5(2) of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills.

B) According to Article 19(1) of the Act on the measurement and evaluation of human behavior, a person who intends to conduct workplace skill development training shall obtain recognition of the relevant workplace skill development training course. If a person did not obtain such recognition, a person who conducts workplace skill development training shall not receive subsidies even if he/she conducted workplace skill development training.

In the instant case, on July 8, 2015, on the ground that the fact that the training course was not conducted as recognized by the Plaintiff was discovered, the fact that the recognition as a new vocational ability development training course was reserved for the vocational ability development training course, such as the measurement and evaluation of human emotional behavior, was conducted on July 8, 2015 (no data was asserted by the Plaintiff). As long as the reservation was made above, even if the Plaintiff voluntarily conducted the measurement and evaluation of human emotional behavior, it shall be deemed that the Defendant may not claim a subsidy.

Therefore, it is legitimate that the Defendant’s failure to pay the Plaintiff subsidies for the measurement and evaluation of human emotional behavior is legitimate.

3) Sub-committee

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion disputing it is without merit to further examine it.

3. Conclusion

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