beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.05.14 2018구합11499

직업능력개발훈련지원금반환등 처분명령 취

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

From September 6, 2011 to June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff is a person who operated the Dongdaemun-gu building B and D child-care center referred to in subparagraph C (hereinafter “instant child-care center”).

E was entrusted by a business owner who operates a childcare center from June 2013 to March 2014 to train childcare teachers who are workers in childcare centers and operated the above education center as the representative director of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”) who is an educational institution that receives training expenses from the business owner.

On July 29, 2015, the head of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu Police Station prepared a false statement to the Defendant on July 29, 2015, “F prepared a false statement even if the head of the child care center did not pay training expenses, and filed a false application for training expenses as if the child care teacher did not complete training at least 80%, and received the false payment of training expenses as if all were received training.”

The above list of crimes included 246,000 won in the amount of illegal receipt related to the child care center of this case.

As a result of the investigation into the fraudulent receipt of subsidies for training expenses related to the childcare center of this case, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff received KRW 246,000 in total as subsidies for training expenses on the ground that G workers in the childcare center of this case (the child care center of this case worked as infant care teachers at the childcare center of this case from August 5, 2013 to May 31, 2014) took training courses including H from F from December 28, 2013 to January 15, 2014.

On June 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on the Plaintiff, pursuant to Articles 55(2), 56(2), and 56(3) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers; and (b) Articles 22 and 22-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, on the ground that “the Defendant has received subsidies for training costs from the trainees (affiliated workers) who participated in training less than 80% of the total training hours approved when conducting training entrusted by the employer, by unlawful means.”