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

A. In accordance with Article 24 of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 9792, Oct. 9, 2009; hereinafter “former Vocational Development Act”), the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation (hereinafter “the Corporation”) recognized a spatial information system (GIS) first level course (hereinafter “instant training course”) from the Defendant as the vocational ability development training course, and conducted the instant training course as recognized from June 22, 2009 to June 26, 2009.

B. However, an employee in charge of the Corporation, who did not report the training implementation and completion of the instant training course before and after the instant training course was conducted, set the training period from November 9, 2009 to November 13, 2009, and reported to the Defendant on November 9, 2009 and completed the training course on November 16, 2009.

C. On October 28, 2010, the Defendant subsidized 4,753,700 won for training expenses in relation to the instant training course on the ground that the Defendant reported on November 9, 2009 and completed the training on November 16, 2009.

D. After that, the Defendant issued the following dispositions on January 12, 201 on the ground that the construction project’s aforementioned payment of training costs constitutes “the case of receiving training costs by false or other unlawful means,” which is the grounds for sanctions under Article 56(2), (3)2, and (5) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, which was amended by Act No. 1037, May 31, 2010, and enforced from September 1, 2010 (hereinafter “Revised Vocational Development Act”); the restriction on subsidization of training costs (Article 24(2)2 and (5) (Article 55(2)1); the refund of unlawful payment; and additional collection (Article 56(2), (3)2, and (5)).”

○ The revocation of recognition of the instant training course and restriction on recognition (from January 12, 201 to April 11, 201) for three months (with respect to all curricula conducted by the Corporation for three months; hereinafter referred to as “first disposition”) on the instant training course

○ The restriction on payment to all training courses for a period of one year (from January 12, 201 to January 11, 201) from the date of the disposition (hereinafter “third disposition”) (hereinafter “third disposition”)

○ Return of the illegally received amount of KRW 4,753,700 for the instant training course and additional collection of KRW 4,753,700 for the instant training course (hereinafter “disposition 4”).

E. In addition, the Defendant issued the following dispositions on the grounds that the above report on the implementation of the training and the report on the completion of the training constitutes “where the workplace skill development training was conducted in violation of the details recognized under Article 24 of the former Vocational Development Act,” which is the grounds for the revocation of the workplace skill development training course under the former Vocational Development Act and the restrictions on recognition of the pertinent training course (Article 25(1)4 and (6)).

○ Cancellation of recognition of the instant training course and restriction on recognition for one year (from January 12, 201 to January 11, 201) (hereinafter referred to as “second disposition”) (hereinafter referred to as “second disposition”).

F. The Corporation filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the disposition in subparagraphs 1 through 4, and the first instance court (Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu11166 decided Oct. 9, 2012) and the second instance court (Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu1166 decided Oct. 9, 2012) ruled against the Corporation. However, the Supreme Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2012Du24764 decided Jul. 24, 2014) ruled that “ even if the Corporation received training costs in violation of the provision on training reports by reporting the training period differently from the actual period after the Corporation actually conducted the occupational ability development training as recognized by the Defendant, even if it received training costs in violation of the provision on the disciplinary action under the amended Occupational Development Act, it cannot be deemed as having received training costs in a fraudulent or other unlawful manner, or it cannot be deemed as having conducted occupational ability development training in violation of the grounds for sanctions under the former Development Act, the Seoul High Court’s judgment was reversed by 2014.

G. On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff comprehensively transferred all the status of the Corporation pursuant to Article 12 of the Framework Act on National Spatial Data Infrastructure (Law No. 12736, Jun. 4, 2015) and Article 2 of the Addenda thereto.

H. Thereafter, on June 12, 2015, the head of the National Land Information Education Center, which belongs to the Plaintiff, filed an application for refund and return of KRW 490,313,695 in total, including the refund of KRW 480,80,806,295 due to the cancellation of the third disposition according to the instant final judgment, and the refund of KRW 9,507,40 due to the cancellation of the fourth disposition. However, on July 14, 2015, the Defendant rendered a land-based disposition of KRW 124,458,308 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the ground that the Corporation did not apply for the recognition of the training course for all workplace skill development training programs from January 12, 2011 to April 11, 2011, on the ground that the aforementioned application for refund was filed.

[Reasons for Recognition] A. A. Evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff did not apply for the recognition of all workplace skill development training courses conducted by the Corporation from January 12, 2011 to April 11, 2011. However, the Plaintiff’s failure to apply for the recognition is based on the Defendant’s first disposition [3 months (from January 12, 201 to April 11, 201) for the entire training courses]. Since the instant disposition was revoked by the final judgment, the Plaintiff’s failure to apply for the recognition of the training courses cannot be attributable to the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. The Defendant’s instant disposition also contradicts the binding force of the final and conclusive judgment of this case that revoked the instant disposition No. 3 [the restriction on payment to the entire training courses for one year (from January 12, 201 to January 11, 2012)].

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

Article 20(1) and 1 of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 11272, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the “Occupational Development Act”) provide that “The Minister of Labor may provide subsidies or loans to employers who conduct workplace skill development projects, such as workplace skill development training for workers, to cover expenses incurred in conducting such projects,” and the main text of Article 24(1) provides that “Any person who intends to conduct workplace skill development training under Article 20 shall obtain recognition from the Minister of Labor for the workplace skill development training course.”

In addition, Article 53(1) and 53(2) of the same Act provides that "The Minister of Labor may order a person who has obtained recognition of the workplace skill development training course pursuant to paragraph (1) to make corrections or revoke the recognition of the training course if the person has conducted the workplace skill development training in violation of the details recognized pursuant to paragraph (1)." Article 53(1) and 2 of the same Act provides that "The Minister of Labor may conduct an evaluation of the matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the ability to conduct training and training performance, to improve the quality of the workplace skill development training." Article 58(1) and 2 of the same Act provides that "The Minister of Employment and Labor may order the person recognized pursuant to Article 24 to make a necessary report or submit materials, or have the relevant public officials enter the place where the workplace skill development training, etc. is conducted and investigate relevant documents or ask questions to relevant persons."

Meanwhile, Article 22(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26808, Dec. 30, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) specify the requirements for training courses that can be recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to Article 24 of the Act, and the type of facilities and institutions to be conducted with the training courses, and the details of recognition thereof. Article 8(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 43, Dec. 30, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “Any person who intends to obtain recognition of workplace skill development training D of Article 22 of the Act and Article 22 of the Decree shall file a report on the completion of the training course with the head of the regional labor office having jurisdiction over the location of the main place for workplace skill development training by 7 days prior to the commencement date of the training course.”

In light of the aforementioned provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as to recognition of workplace skill development training courses, the legislative purport of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, etc., comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned evidence and the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of evidence and evidence set forth in subparagraphs 4 through 7, the Defendant’s disposition of this case to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot refund education and training expenses for reasons that the Plaintiff did not apply for recognition among the training courses conducted during the period of restriction on recognition of the first disposition, can be deemed lawful.

The Act on the Development of Vocational Skills stipulates that workplace skill development training shall be recognized on the condition that it shall meet certain requirements with respect to workplace skill development training in order to promote and support the workplace skill development training of workers, train technical and skilled human resources needed in the industrial field, and contribute to the improvement of the productivity of enterprises and the improvement of the productivity of enterprises by carrying out projects on industry-academic cooperation, etc.

According to the occupational development laws and regulations as seen earlier, only when a specific business owner obtains recognition of workplace skill development training, there is an administrative agency’s authority to evaluate workplace skill development training facilities, etc. (see Article 53(1)), or to instruct and supervise an administrative agency’s duty to report, submit data, etc. (see Article 58(1)). Accordingly, recognition of workplace skill development training is a key and essential procedure for supporting and supervising workplace skill development training by an administrative agency, such as granting subsidies.

In addition, according to Article 8(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Development Act, in order to examine whether the pertinent training course satisfies the substantive requirements prescribed in Article 22(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Development Act, an application for recognition shall be submitted seven days before the relevant training course is held, and Article 8(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Development Act provides that an administrative agency shall notify the applicant of the result by using a notice of recognition of the occupational ability development training course by the date immediately preceding the commencement date of the training course. This is interpreted to ensure that the training institution can ascertain whether the training course is recognized by the administrative agency before the relevant training course is held, so it does not cause any unexpected damage. As a result, the Plaintiff is obliged to bear any damage therefrom.

○ A public project, which is a public project, could carry out the procedure to preserve the right by seeking a suspension of the execution of the first disposition that includes the period of recognition restriction in this case at an appropriate time, and then proceed with the application for recognition of the training course and the implementation of the training course. However, even though the Defendant’s first disposition influenced the Defendant’s non-application of the construction, the assertion that the above application for recognition cannot be filed due to a cause for which the construction works are not responsible is not persuasive. In fact, unlike the first disposition, the Corporation has applied for a suspension of the execution of the second and third disposition and received the decision

○ Even though the third disposition was revoked by the final judgment of this case, the defendant is sufficient to pay only the vocational ability development training process lawfully conducted during the period of the restriction on recognition of the above disposition, and the support for all vocational ability development training processes conducted during that period is not necessarily required to be guaranteed. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's disposition of this case violates the binding force of the final judgment of this case revoked the third disposition cannot be accepted.

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.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Kang-dae