사업주직업능력개발훈련비용반환명령 등 취소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasons stated in this case by the court of this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination by this court [Plaintiff's assertion] cannot be viewed as having received training costs by fraud or other improper means, and there is no ground for disposition.
The defendant's disposition is an abuse of discretion or a deviation from its limit because it is too harsh to the plaintiff because it has lost a significant balance between the contents of the violation and the disposition concerned.
[Judgment] The above assertion made by the plaintiff in this court is not different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court. However, the first instance court's decision rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is justified even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance court were examined.
Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides, “A revocation suit may be instituted by a person having a legal interest in seeking the revocation of a disposition, etc... This shall also apply to a person who has a legal interest in seeking the revocation thereof, even after the effect of a disposition, etc. is extinguished due to the lapse of the period, the execution of a disposition, etc.
On the other hand, if the effective period of a punitive administrative disposition is specified and the validity or execution of the disposition is not suspended, the effect of the administrative disposition is invalidated at the expiration of that period, and there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition, but there is a legal interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition, if there are any circumstances to deem that the disposition is being in violation of the legal interest
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Du1684 Decided June 22, 2006). In this case, the Defendant’s disposition on the restriction on subsidies and loans (from June 17, 2014 to June 11, 2015) among the Defendant’s disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Du1684, Jun. 11, 2015) is the same.