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

A. The Plaintiff is a person who is operating C Educational Institute located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government after obtaining a report completion certificate from the Seoul Metropolitan Government on October 9, 2009.

B. From October 14, 2009 to December 8, 2009, the Plaintiff conducted a caregiver training course (hereinafter referred to as “instant training course”) for 14 students, and on January 11, 2010, Article 29 of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 10339, Jun. 4, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22026, Feb. 8, 2010; hereinafter the same) applied for the payment of training expenses by using the worker capacity development card (hereinafter referred to as “instant application”). The Defendant did not receive the recognition of the training course applied by the Plaintiff on the ground that the training course applied for by the Plaintiff was rejected under the Workers’ Skill Development Act (amended by Act No. 10337, May 31, 2010; hereinafter referred to as “instant rejection disposition by the Minister of Labor”).

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 3-1, Eul evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The rejection disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff had lawfully applied for the recognition of the training course before October 14, 2009, which started the instant training course. However, the Plaintiff did not have any reason attributable to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Defendant was forced to obtain recognition of the training course during which the training course was conducted due to the lack of documents, etc.

2) The instant rejection disposition on the ground of minor procedural defects that the Plaintiff did not apply for prior approval of training courses violates the purport of the Occupational Development Act to promote the promotion of workers’ employment and employment stability.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On October 26, 2009, after October 14, 2009, the date of commencement of the instant training course, the Plaintiff filed an application for ID from the Defendant on October 27, 2009 to use the vocational ability development training information network (HR-Net).

2) On November 2, 2009, the Plaintiff entered a training plan under Article 9(1) of the Rules on Assistance to the Autonomous Development of Vocational Skills (Notice of Ministry of Labor No. 2009-15, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules on Assistance to Vocational Skills Development") with respect to the training courses for new caregivers (from December 9, 2009 to February 2, 2010), but did not attach training time table under paragraph (4) of the same Article, and did not submit an application for recognition of the workplace skill development training course required under paragraph (1) of the same Article, the Defendant did not demand supplementation of the Plaintiff’s training course for application for recognition of the Plaintiff’s training course, and returned it on November 12, 2009.

3) On November 16, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted an application for recognition of the workplace skill development training course again, but requested voluntary return on November 27, 2009 due to changes in training expenses, training hours, details, etc. The Defendant returned the Plaintiff’s application document again on November 30, 2009.

4) On December 4, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of vocational skills development training courses and a training implementation plan with respect to a new training course for caregivers (from December 9, 2009 to February 2, 2010). The Defendant, on December 6, 2009, notified the Plaintiff of the recognition of a worker’s autonomous occupational ability development training course on the said training course, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application is consistent with Article 24(1) of the Vocational Development Act and Article 22(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The grounds for recognition are written as evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

D. Determination

1) According to Article 29(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, the Minister of Labor may subsidize expenses incurred in occupational ability development training. According to Article 44(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, an insured worker may attend occupational ability development training at a training institution, and the above expenses shall be paid at the request of the head of the training institution. Meanwhile, according to Article 63(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, the training courses eligible for payment of such expenses are limited to the training courses recognized by the Minister of Labor. Meanwhile, Article 21(1)1 of the Vocational Development Act provides that the Minister of Labor may also subsidize the expenses for occupational ability development training courses recognized by the Minister of Labor. Article 24(1) provides that anyone who intends to obtain occupational ability development training with the application form for recognition of occupational ability development training expenses shall be granted by the Minister of Labor from the date of filing an application form for recognition of occupational ability development training courses, and Article 22(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Development Act provides for the submission of the application form for recognition of occupational Training.

2) In full view of the above provisions, Article 8(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Development Act requires the pertinent training course to submit an application for recognition seven days prior to the implementation of the pertinent training course in order to examine whether the pertinent training course satisfies the substantive requirements under Article 22(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Development Act. Article 9(2) of the Regulations on the Support for Vocational Development provides that an administrative agency shall examine and notify whether the training institution satisfies the requirements within seven days from the date of receipt of the said application, thereby allowing the relevant training institution to ascertain whether the training course is recognized by the Minister of Labor before the implementation of the pertinent training course, so that

3) Examining the instant case’s return, the Plaintiff was not recognized by the Minister of Labor for the instant training course before October 14, 2009, where the instant training course commenced.

(1) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff filed an application for workplace skill development training information network (HRD-Net) user ID on October 26, 2009, after the date of commencement of the instant training course, the Plaintiff’s prior application is deemed impossible at source. In addition, the Plaintiff’s training course recognized by the Minister of Labor on December 4, 2009 as of December 4, 2009 at the end of several times, is a new caregiver, and it cannot be deemed that the instant training course is recognized by the Minister of Labor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the prior application is without merit.

4) As seen above, it is aimed at ensuring the propriety of the pertinent training course to ensure that an administrative agency’s prior examination of whether the pertinent training course satisfies the statutory requirements. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s failure to apply for prior examination is not a minor procedural defect, but a basic framework for the application is deemed not satisfied. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant refusal disposition violates the purport of the Vocational Development Act to promote the stability of workers’ employment and promote their employment is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Jae-hee

Judges Yang Jae-chul

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.