The Defendant’s disposition of additional collection of KRW 1,291,140 against the Plaintiff on May 12, 2010, which exceeds KRW 413,250, shall be revoked.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. One-third of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s cancellation of a consignment contract with the Plaintiff on May 12, 2010, and restriction on consignment and recognition of the entire course three months, revocation of designation of vocational ability development training facilities, termination of the relevant training course, restrictions on entrustment and recognition of one year and three months for the relevant training course, revocation of recognition of the relevant training course, return of training expenses 1,291,140 won, and additional collection of KRW 1,291,140 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

Although the Plaintiff filed a judgment identical to the purport of the claim by the instant lawsuit, on May 12, 2010, the court of the first instance accepted the part of the Defendant’s claim on ① the part of the Defendant’s disposition stated in the purport of the claim against the Plaintiff, which was partially rejected the Defendant’s claim to terminate the relevant entrustment contract and to revoke the relevant termination of the entrustment contract for the relevant training course, ② the part exceeding one year out of the restriction on the recognition of entrustment for three months of the entire course, the revocation of the designation of vocational training facilities, the restriction on the recognition of entrustment for one year and three months of the pertinent training course, and the portion of the claim to revoke the additional collection of KRW 137,750 of the training fees for illegal receipt, the amount exceeding 1,29

The defendant appealed against this part of the judgment against the defendant, but the defendant does not dispute the part of the judgment against the defendant. Thus, the scope of the judgment against this court is limited to the part 2.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's explanation on this case is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or modification as follows. Thus, this court's explanation is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use]

The "former Act on the Development of Functions" in Part 8 of the 10th page is the "Revised Act on the Development of Functions".

The title 13 of the Act on the Development of Functions in the 13th place is stipulated as the "Act on the Development of Functions".

【Revised Part】

The phrase “an additional collection of KRW 1,291,140,000,000” is amended as follows:

According to Article 16 (6) 1 (a) and (b) of the amended Vocational Development Act, Article 13-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 6 (1) 1 (a) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, where the amount subsidized by a person whose entrustment contract is terminated by fraud or other improper means is less than KRW 1,00,000,000, an administrative agency shall not exceed five times the amount (it is false for five years before the date of detection of

If there is no number of requests for expenses by fraud or other improper means, the amount equivalent to three times the amount of subsidies received by fraud or other improper means, 1,000,000 won or more shall be additionally collected.

As to the instant case, the Defendant considered the Plaintiff’s illegal receipt amount as KRW 1,291,140 and additionally collected the amount corresponding thereto. However, as seen earlier, in the instant case where there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff had previously filed a claim for expenses by false or other unlawful means, the Defendant is entitled to additionally collect KRW 413,250, which is three times the said KRW 137,750, based on the above provisions. Accordingly, the said additional collection disposition is lawful within the scope of KRW 413,250, and the exceeding part should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant who ordered the revocation exceeding the above recognition amount among the part concerning the additional collection disposition of the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, it is revoked, the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-ho

Judges Lee So-hee