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

A. On June 7, 2013, the Plaintiff was designated by the Defendant as a vocational skills development training establishment under Article 28(1) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers. On September 9, 2013, the said B school submitted to the Defendant an application for recognition of a training course for employees’ accounts with the following content pursuant to Article 19 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers and Article 26 of the Regulations on the Implementation of Vocational Skills Development. On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff was notified by the Defendant of the recognition of a training course for employees’ accounts with the validity of one year from September 30, 2013 to September 29, 2014.

- -

A person shall be appointed.

B. On March 15, 2014, the Plaintiff was conducting workplace skill development training with the same content as that recognized as an employee’s account joint training course. On March 15, 2014, the training period for the Defendant was from March 15, 2014 to March 30, 2014; six trainees; the number of trainees is from March 15, 2014; the number of trainees is 40 hours per 10 days; the five days during a week shall be 5 hours per hour; and the total number of five hours per week shall be 35 hours per 7 hours per week; and the workplace skill development training schedule was newly received (hereinafter “instant training”).

C. On March 25, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that, as a result of the Plaintiff’s instruction and inspection of the training courses (the fact-finding on a sports campaign site) received and conducted by the Plaintiff on the Tuesday, all trainees were not present, and that the training institution’s text was diving.

D. On April 4, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the revocation of recognition of the workplace skill development training course (sports activity) and the implementation of the hearing by giving prior notice of the disposition of restriction on consignment of and recognition for the relevant one-year course, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not conduct the training recognized on the same day without reporting the change, in operating the sports activity (from March 15, 2014 to March 30, 2014) process, which is a training course for employees’ account joint.

E. On May 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct training and comply with the details of organizing training - arbitrarily reduced and operated 40 hours per 35 hours a day, which is the 10-day time approved at the time of recognition of the training course; (b) deemed that the training content, training methods, training instructors, instructors, training places, training facilities and equipment, etc., as stated in Article 19(2)5 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers and Article 6-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act and Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2] (a) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and violated the contents recognized to the extent that it violated the purpose of training; and (c) taken measures to revoke recognition of the training course (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

The purport of Article 9 of the Regulations on the Subsidies for the Improvement of Workers’ Vocational Skills is that if a training period (number of days) is changed, the report should be reported in the event of a change in the originally reported training schedule, and it cannot be deemed that the report should be made even if a trainee is absent in the course of conducting the training according to the initially reported training schedule. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s failure of the trainee to conduct the training during the course of conducting the training in accordance with the initially reported training schedule to the Defendant is a case requiring a report on the change under the above provision.

Even if the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct the training as specified in the training schedule is required for the modification of the training schedule, since all trainees took part in the training using weekends at least 80% of the total training hours, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s act violates the purpose of the training.

(ii) the deviation and abuse of discretionary power;

Furthermore, on March 25, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition immediately on the ground that the training was not conducted according to the initially reported training schedule. Since the Plaintiff’s private interest or the Plaintiff’s interests that are infringed compared to the public interest to be achieved by the instant disposition are higher than the public interest to be achieved by the instant disposition, the instant disposition is unlawful in violation of the principle of proportionality, and thus, it is against the principle of proportionality.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(i) the existence of the reasons for the measure

A) Article 19(1) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers provides that a person who intends to conduct workplace skill development training for which workers may receive subsidies or loans for training costs and a person who intends to operate an account-based training course shall obtain recognition from the Minister of Employment and Labor for the relevant workplace skill development training course (including an account-based training course; hereinafter the same shall apply). Article 17(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that one of the requirements for recognition of workplace skill development training courses is "requirements determined by the Minister of Employment and Labor, such as training period, time, teachers and instructors, training details, training contents, and training facilities and equipment," and Article 14(1)1 of the Regulations on the Implementation of Workplace Skill Development Accounts provides that "the training period and training hours shall be at least ten days and at least 40 hours, respectively.

Furthermore, Article 27 (proviso) and (2) of the Vocational Skills Development Account Implementation Regulations and Article 9 (proviso) and subparagraph 2 of the same Article of the Regulations on Subsidies for Improvement of Workers' Vocational Skills provide that the training institution should report the change before the date of the change if there is a change in the training schedule.

Meanwhile, Article 19(2)5 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers provides that the Minister of Employment and Labor may revoke the recognition of a training course "where a workplace skill development training is conducted in violation of the details recognized under paragraph (1)", and Article 6-3 and [Attachment Table 1-2] subparagraph 1-1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that where a person who has obtained recognition of a training course pursuant to Article 19 of the Act commits an act falling under any subparagraph of Article 19(2) of the Act, corrective orders, cancellation of recognition, or restrictions on recognition shall be imposed in accordance with the individual standards under subparagraph 2: Provided, That where no intentional or gross negligence exists or the degree of violation is minor, measures may be taken by reducing it within the scope of 1/2 (order for Correction) of the standards set by the individual standards. Article 19(2)5 of the same Act provides that "where a person has violated the purpose of training, such as training methods, training instructors, training instructors, training places, training facilities, equipment, etc." the relevant disposition shall be granted for one year entrustment.

B) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, which show the overall purport of the arguments as stated in Gap evidence and evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, and 11, i.e., the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, stipulate training hours as one of the important elements of the vocational ability development training course, and the training hours should be strictly observed to achieve the smooth purpose of vocational ability development training. The purport of Article 36 (2) 1 of the Regulations on the Implementation of Vocational Skills Development Accounts provides that if trainees attend 80% or more of the total training course due to inevitable reasons, they can be considered as having completed the training. The purport of the provision is that if the trainees are unable to participate in the training due to inevitable reasons, the training can be viewed as being lawfully conducted. ② The plaintiff should have consistently conducted the training period and time for the first defendant 10-day training, and the total training period of 5-day during the training period and 35-day hours during each week during each of the instant training days during the training.

Therefore, so long as the plaintiff could have sufficiently predicted that the training will not proceed as originally reported training schedule, this constitutes a case requiring a report of change following the change of training schedule under the proviso of Article 27 and subparagraph 2 of the same Article, and the proviso of Article 9 and subparagraph 2 of the same Article of the Regulations on Implementation of Vocational Skills Development Accounts, and Article 9 of the Regulations on Subsidies for Improvement of Workers' Vocational Skills, and further, the case where the training hours were unreasonably reduced and operated due to the above acts by the plaintiff constitutes "a case where the contents recognized to the extent that it violates the purpose of the training as to the important matters of training courses under the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers and

2) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused or not

The following circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of this case, namely, workplace skill development training is operated with limited public resources, such as the State budget and the Employment Insurance Fund under the Employment Insurance Act, and is highly beneficial to the public interest seeking the stabilization of workers’ employment, the improvement of social and economic status, and the improvement of corporate productivity. In particular, training hours need to be strictly observed in order to achieve the smooth purpose of workplace skill development training. In light of the fact that the degree of violation caused by the Plaintiff’s act is difficult to be deemed minor, and that the instant disposition took place in accordance with the administrative disposition standards stipulated in the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, even considering the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Park Jae-won

Judges Park Jong-won

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.