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

A. The Plaintiff was recognized as a vocational skills development training course pursuant to Article 24 of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills”) for 2008 for 68 new internships, and received KRW 7,14,760 as training expenses from the Defendant.

B. On February 24, 2011, the Defendant received training expenses from the Plaintiff on the ground of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8429, May 11, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “former Employment Insurance Act”) (amended by Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Employment Insurance Act”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was paid subsidies for training expenses by treating the Plaintiff as having attended an overseas departure between February 17, 2008 and February 28, 2008; and neglecting the attendance management during the said internship training period; and by neglecting the attendance management during the said internship training period; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act”); 25(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21015, Sep. 18, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

The Defendant’s main defense to the effect that the instant disposition was revoked ex officio and does not exist, and thus, the instant disposition is null and void as it loses its validity, and the revocation lawsuit against the non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006). The Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on August 29, 2013 on the ground that Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act of the Republic of Korea violates the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation under Article 75 of the Constitution (201Hun-Ba390, Sept. 30, 2013). Accordingly, the Defendant’s revocation of the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on September 30, 2013, which was subject to no dispute between the parties, and thus, is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the litigation cost is borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges’ Trade Name,

Judges Cho Jin-jin