반환명령 및 추가징수 결정 등 취소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasons for the finding of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance to the part partially modified and the allegations added by the plaintiffs in the trial of the court of first instance to the following, and therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding paragraph (2)). Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the
[Revision] Part of the Judgment of the court of first instance is added to "In Mancheon District Court" under the Table 4 attached to the Judgment of the court of first instance.
Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance court is referred to as "judgment, etc." in Part 20 as "see, e.g., judgment, etc."
Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance court "the results of the investigation by the base station on the results of the investigation by the base station" shall be "the results of the investigation by the base station".
Part 8, 10 to 9 of the judgment document of the first instance is as shown in the next letter box.
"False or other unlawful means", which is defined as the grounds for sanctions under Articles 55 and 56 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, refers to all the acts that are not correct in social norms in order for a person who is not eligible to receive training costs to pretend that he/she is qualified or to conceal the fact that he/she is not qualified, and which may have an effect on decision-making for training costs.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du24764, Jul. 24, 2014). In addition, a sanction against a violation of an administrative law is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of an administrative law in order to achieve administrative purposes, since it is a sanction against a violation of an administrative law, not a real offender, but a person who is prescribed as a person responsible for the legal affairs, and barring any special circumstance, it may be imposed neither intentionally nor by negligence on the violator, barring special
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1297 Decided May 10, 2012). With respect to the instant case, the health unit and the Plaintiffs belong to each of the following.