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

A. Nonparty A management office entrusted the education of electrical and fire-fighting equipment to its employees, which is a training institution for the ability development of employees operated by Nonparty B (hereinafter “A”) and received KRW 25,059,447 from the Defendant during the period from July 9, 2010 to September 14, 2015.

B. On March 8, 2016, the Defendant issued a prior notice of disposition following the wrongful receipt of training expenses (hereinafter referred to as “prior notice of March 8, 2016”) on the ground that: (a) the management office, in collusion with the Korea Technology Institute of Technology, did not pay 80% of the training expenses without registering the training expenses; (b) paid the training expenses and received 80% of the training expenses; and (c) issued a notice of disposition following the wrongful receipt of training expenses (hereinafter referred to as “prior notice of March 8, 2016”) on March 28, 2016; (d) returned training expenses paid 25,059,447, the extinctive prescription period of which has not arrived at 14,100,000 won and additionally collected the same amount; and (e) notified the payment and demand of the Employment Insurance Fund for two years with restriction on subsidization (hereinafter referred to as “the instant notice of attachment”) (hereinafter referred to as “the instant notice of 16.7.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 5, and purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the other party to the notification of disposition made on March 8, 2016 is written as "D, representing the A management office," and the other party to the notification of disposition made on March 28, 2016 as "D (A management office representative)" and the other party to the notification of disposition made on July 12, 2016 as "A management office," respectively.

In light of these circumstances, there is room for recognizing the other party to the instant demand disposition as an individual D or A management office, which is not the plaintiff, and thus, it is illegal to violate the other party’s specific method required under the Administrative Procedures Act.

B. In order to issue the instant reminder, recognition of a technical institute must be cancelled on the premise of the issuance. However, since the Defendant’s revocation of recognition, etc. on March 9, 2016 to B, who is the operator of the technical institute, has suspended its validity due to a provisional disposition suspending validity of the Gwangju District Court’s revocation, the instant reminder disposition premised on the validity of the disposition, such as cancellation, etc

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate (Judgment as to whether the other party to the disposition of this case is a plaintiff)

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The following circumstances can be acknowledged based on the aforementioned facts and the entire purport of the statements and arguments stated in the Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, namely, ① A management office registered its business from January 28, 1995 and operated residential real estate management business, ② purchased employment insurance for its employees from January 1, 1998, ② signed an entrustment contract with the Korea Human Resources Development Institute, and submitted an application for the payment of business training fees and tax invoices, etc. to the Gwangju Regional Headquarters of the Human Resources Development Service of Korea from May 2, 2012 to September 2015; ③ the Defendant deposited 25,059,47 won into an account in the name of the management office under the name of the management office; ④ the Defendant’s prior notice on March 8, 2016; the instant demand for the disposition of this case; and the instant disposition issued on July 12, 2016; and the Plaintiff’s actual business owner’s ability to provide support under the name of the management office under the name of the pertinent management office is difficult.

Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Plaintiff to have no standing to sue to seek revocation of the instant lawsuit, or to seek revocation of the disposition that did not exist.

4. Conclusion

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-won

Chief Judge Judge