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

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation that produces and sells television, cell phones, and other electronic equipment, etc., was recognized as a vocational skills development training course pursuant to Article 24 of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter “former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers”) with respect to each vocational ability training course listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “the instant training course”) around 208.

B. The Plaintiff conducted the instant training course at the self-training institution called the “Training Institute for Staff Training for △△△△ Factory” in the attached Table 1’s “Training Period” within each period indicated in the attached Table, and received KRW 120,440, training expenses for Nonparty 1 of the instant training course and KRW 81,720, training expenses for Nonparty 2 of the instant training course, and KRW 180,620, for Nonparty 3 of the instant training course, on the day indicated in the attached Table 1.

C. The Defendant, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the former Development of Human Resources Act, issued an order to establish management measures related to the management of a trainee's seat and to report the result thereof to October 7, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff was unable to participate in the instant training course after Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 going to a business trip abroad, and was paid training expenses by false or other unlawful means (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the instant disposition"). ② The Defendant revoked the instant training course with the total amount of illegal payment of less than 382,780 won and less than 1,00,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the instant disposition").

D. On November 15, 201, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which was dismissed on February 28, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

The Plaintiff’s application for the training subsidy to Nonparty 1, 2 and 3 is merely an error in work and lacks a subjective requirement to conceal the fact that the Plaintiff was absent, which is not by fraud or improper means.

3. Related statutes;

Attached Table 1 is as stated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

4. Facts of recognition;

A. According to the report of the completion of the instant training (No. 2), eight persons who completed the instant training course including Nonparty 1. Persons who completed the instant training course are 15 persons including Nonparty 2, and persons who completed the instant training course are 13 persons including Nonparty 3.

B. Although Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, included in the list of trainees of the instant training courses, were not present at the instant training courses due to overseas business trips, they are written with their signatures as if they were present at the meeting of the Ministry of Justice (No. 3).

The training life training period included in the main sentence shall be the grounds for the overseas departure from Korea during the period of overseas departure from Korea from March 17, 2008 to September 26, 2008 to March 25, 2008 to March 29, 2008 to July 24, 2008 to June 24, 2008 to June 26, 2008 to June 26, 2008 to June 26, 2008 to June 24, 2008 to June 26, 2008 to September 22, 2008 to September 26, 2008 to September 24, 2008 to September 26, 2008.

C. After implementing the instant training courses, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant into the “Information Network for Vocational Skills Development” (HRD-N) with Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 who completed the training course, and ② filed a written report with Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 on the trainee’s attendance record, along with a list of those who completed the training course including Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, and filed an application for subsidies for the cost of vocational skills development training with the list of those who completed the training course.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry B in the evidence of Nos. 2 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

5. Determination

A. Sanction against violation of administrative laws is a sanction against the objective fact of violation of administrative laws in order to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, barring any special circumstance, such as where a failure to perform duties is not caused by an intentional act or negligence, it may be imposed even on the violator (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Du5972, May 26, 2000; 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003; 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003, etc.). The term "false or other unlawful means" under Article 25 of the former Development of Ability Act means all unlawful acts conducted to conceal the eligibility of an unqualified business owner or the lack of eligibility to receive the subsidy for new employment promotion, which may affect the decision-making with respect to the payment of subsidy for new employment promotion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du4272, Jun. 11, 2009; 2005Du775, Feb. 27, 20005).

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned evidence and the facts acknowledged as follows, i.e., (i) it is essential to prepare the attendance record as it is necessary for the Plaintiff to attend the training course; (ii) the Plaintiff’s employee entered false records as if Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 did not participate in the training course; and (iii) the instant training course was conducted in the Plaintiff’s self-training place and the trainees were merely 8 to 15 and it was easy for the Plaintiff to attend the training course; and (iv) Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 did not participate in the training course due to Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 issued an overseas business trip order; thus, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was well aware of the fact that Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 did not attend the training course before applying for the training subsidy; and in view of the fact that the Plaintiff could have paid due attention to the fact that he did not know that he did not participate in the training course, the Plaintiff’s act of failing to participate in the training course should be deemed as unlawful.

6. Conclusion

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

[Attachment]

Judges Jin Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-nam best