2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiffs are companies engaged in the taxi transport business, and both Nonparty A and B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant training institution”) are companies recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor as having been engaged in workplace skill development training course.

B. The Plaintiffs are defined as “distance training where training is conducted using training materials using printed media and where training trainees are managed on the web” in the instant training institution’s provision on support for workplace skill development training of mail training business operators (Notice of Ministry of Employment and Labor).

On the premise that workplace skill development training is conducted normally, a contract was concluded to entrust workplace skill development training for workers in the method (hereinafter referred to as “the distance training in this case”) and thereafter, a subsidy was received from the Republic of Korea by applying for subsidies to the Human Resources Development Service of Korea under the following premise:

① On December 15, 2014 through February 14, 2015, 10,696,000 won, from December 15, 2014 to February 14, 2015, for the payment date of subsidies for training institutions for the number of persons completing the training courses for Plaintiff Jeong Ho Transportation Serial Co., Ltd., Ltd., the number of employees working for A taxi companies, and the number of employees working for B taxi drivers, as well as the number of employees working for B taxi drivers on March 21, 2015 to October 21, 2015, the number of employees working for B taxi drivers and the number of employees working for A taxi training institutions, the number of employees working for B taxi drivers, as well as the number of employees working for B taxi drivers on August 21, 2015 to October 14, 2015, the number of employees working for A taxi training institutions, the number of employees working for 15th 10th 2, 2016.

On August 3, 2017, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiffs filed a false application for subsidies as if the trainees who participated in the instant remote training failed to meet the standard of completion, thereby illegally receiving the subsidies.