2. The Commissioner of the Gwangju Regional Employment Agency.

Defendant Gwangju Regional Employment Agency: To the Plaintiff on August 31, 201, the disposition taken by the Human Resources Development Service of Korea for one year (from September 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012) to restrict the entrustment and recognition of training courses for medical electronics A and medical electronicB at schools shall be revoked.

A. Pursuant to Article 60 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Article 52 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23467, Dec. 30, 201), the Minister of Employment and Labor entrusted the matters concerning the entrustment of national key and strategic industry occupational training to the head of Gwangju regional headquarters of Human Resources Development Service of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Disposition Agency"), and the disposition agency accordingly.

On March 10, 201, on the part of Defendant Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant school”) and the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant school”) entered into an entrustment contract for training for occupational categories for national key and strategic industries (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant training courses”) with respect to medical and electronic A, medical and electronic B training courses (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant training courses”), as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

B. On July 21, 201, the Ministry of Employment and Labor and the disposition agency conducted a special guidance and inspection for the instant school (hereinafter “instant inspection”) and discovered the following facts of violation of the training plan (hereinafter “instant violation”).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

C. On August 31, 201, the disposition authority rendered a disposition of the restriction on consignment and recognition (from September 1, 2011 to August 31, 201) with respect to each of the instant training courses, on the ground that the instant violation constitutes a violation of the entrustment contract with respect to the important matters of the training courses, such as training period, training hours, class organization, training teachers, training place, training facilities and equipment, etc., prescribed in Article 16(2)3 and (3) of the Act, and Article 6 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act (hereinafter “the instant measure criteria”), on the grounds that “the instant contract is terminated, to the extent that it violates the entrustment contract with respect to the important matters of the training courses, such as training facilities, training facilities, training facilities, and equipment,” and at the same time, upon the termination of each of the instant entrustment contract, each of the instant training courses for one year (from August 1, 2011 to from August 31, 2012).

D. Meanwhile, as the Plaintiff initially filed the instant lawsuit against Defendant Republic of Korea and the Human Resources Development Service of Korea, which came into effect on January 1, 2012, Article 52(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23467, Dec. 30, 201) delegated the authority to each of the instant dispositions to the head of the regional employment and labor office, the head of the regional employment and labor office, the former agency’s duties on each of the instant dispositions were succeeded to the head of the regional employment and labor office of Gwangju-gu.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 and 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each disposition of the instant case is valid and lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The absence of the grounds for termination and the grounds for disposition

In order to achieve the purpose of training that trainees are employed in the course of each of the instant training courses, the Plaintiff only allowed substitute teachers to take lessons as follows, or used teaching materials to change the place of lessons, add teaching materials, or auxiliary teaching materials to the extent that it does not interfere with the progress of training in response to the urgent situation at the site, so it cannot be said that the Plaintiff violated the entrustment contract to the extent that it would violate the purpose of training with respect to the important matters of the training courses.

① In the case of the medical and electronic A course, since the physical condition of C, which is a training teacher, is not good, D, which is a training teacher for the medical and electronic A course, and some training teachers with knowledge in the relevant field, were replaced for six days, and D, is merely a part of the training course originally planned as a part-time lecturer for the medical and electronic training course and the part-time instructor for the medical device field, which is included in the initial training course, and the remaining training teachers also faithfully carried out the number of classes as specified in the plan approved.

② In the case of the medical and electronic B course, the Plaintiff is equipped with a separate training room, but it is necessary to use a computer due to the characteristics of the relevant training subject, and the Plaintiff took lessons in the lecture room where the computer is installed. As trainees do not exceed 30, auxiliary teachers in the plan do not necessarily have to participate, and the subjects included in the training course are not classes irrelevant to the training plan.

(2) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

Even if the Plaintiff violated each of the instant consignment contracts, it was intended to efficiently conduct workplace skill development training, and it was also insignificant in the degree of violation and did not take mitigation measures.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The contract of each of the instant consignment contracts states that the details of the training conducted by the Plaintiff are based on the training plan and training schedule submitted at the time of applying for training.

2) On July 21, 201, in relation to the medical and electronic A process, on the other hand, in the digital control (on July 5, 2011, the 'parking phone number display machine' among the digital control (the contents of the lecture) should be operated as the teaching material called 'PIC E', instead of the training teacher (C) in charge, D was demoted with the teaching material called 'medical engineering entry', and even before that, E, F, G, H, and I provided at will education as teachers other than C, the training teacher in charge, who are not recognized.

3) On July 21, 201, in relation to the medical and electronic B process, the curriculum design education for the digital logic circuit is conducted with the teaching material called "PICmacom route", among the training teachers (I, F) who are in charge of the training (I, only one of the training teachers who are not practice rooms, for the digital logic circuit design education.

4) Article 11 of the Regulations on the Implementation, etc. of Training for National Period and Strategic Industry Occupational Categories (Notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2010-29) provides that a trainee shall submit an application for confirmation of an implementation plan for training for national key and strategic industrial occupational categories to the head of the headquarters or branch office of the Human Resources Development Service of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the headquarters or branch office") by no later than 14 days prior to the date of commencement of training along with the training time schedule, and the head of the headquarters or branch office shall examine the appropriateness of the implementation plan and notify the relevant trainee of the confirmation of the implementation plan for training for national key and strategic industrial occupational categories, and shall immediately report the confirmation of the implementation plan to the Chief of the Human Resources Development Service of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Chief") by no later than seven days prior to the scheduled date of modification if the trainee intends to modify the finalized implementation plan, the head of the headquarters or branch office may make a report on the change without delay to the Chief of the National Headquarters or the head of the agency.

[Ground of recognition] Eul evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 2-1-3, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the grounds for termination and the grounds for the disposition exist

In other words, the above facts, the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments are as follows: ① At the time of the inspection of this case, the Plaintiff was demoted or recognized by a lecturer who was not recognized differently from the initial training plan due to the personal reasons of the training teacher at the time of the inspection of this case (medical electronic A), and the Plaintiff was found to have been aware of the fact that only one of the instructors was recognized by a lecture room other than the practice room during the training hours, and that he was engaged in theoretical education with other teaching materials (medical electronic B). ② If the training plan needs to be modified, the Plaintiff submitted an application for the alteration of the training plan at least seven days before the scheduled date of the alteration, and submitted an application for the alteration of the training plan at least seven days before the scheduled date of the alteration, but the Plaintiff could have changed the training teacher, training contents, the training materials, the training place, etc. without the permission of the Plaintiff’s training teacher at the time of the inspection of this case, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s submission of confirmation corresponding thereto constitutes a violation of Article 16(2) of this case’s contract.

2) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused or not

In other words, the following circumstances recognized by the above facts, the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① each of the dispositions of this case, are deemed to have been conducted in accordance with the criteria set forth in the measure guidelines of this case, ② the evidence materials submitted by the Plaintiff alone are not enough to deem the Plaintiff to have had no intent to each of the instant offenses or to have a minor degree of violation, ③ the purpose and purport of workplace skill development training conducted for the smooth supply and demand of human resources in the national strategic industry, such as the industry, information and communication industry, automobile industry, etc. serving as a national economy period, ③ the enormous amount of funds invested in the workplace development project, and infringement of the right of trainees to receive appropriate training due to each of the instant violations, it is difficult

3) Therefore, each of the instant dispositions by the Defendants is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Yang Yang-ju

Judge Kim Gin-hun

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.