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

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a private teaching institute in the name of “C” on the second floor of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul. The Defendant is the head of a local employment and labor office delegated the authority of the Minister of Employment and Labor to recognize the “recognition of the courses for mutual recognition of the accounts” and the “recognition of the recognition” under Article 19 of the Vocational Skills Development Act (hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development Act”) pursuant to Article 60 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills and Article 52(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Around March 2014, the Plaintiff was recognized as a “recognition of the curriculum of the “unified Master’s Qualifications Certificate operated by the Plaintiff” and “a qualification certificate of Unified Master’s History (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “each course of this case”).

B. On March 25, 2015, the Defendant revoked the “recognition” of each process of this case based on Article 19(2)5 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 6-3 [Attachment 2] of the same Act, Article 6-5(5), and Article 6(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 19(2) of the same Act, and Article 6-2 of the same Act, and Article 6-2(2) of the same Act, and Article 6-2 of the same Act, and Article 6(2) of the same Act, and Article 6(2) of the same Act.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not manage the departure and decision-making of trainees by unlawful means. Accordingly, the instant disposition does not constitute a ground for the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Plaintiff did not have intention to do so, and the Plaintiff only kept the call card for their convenience at the request of trainees, and the Plaintiff did not have any record of being subject to sanctions before the instant disposition was issued, and thus, the instant disposition is in violation of the principle of proportionality. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form shall be as listed in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Article 19(1) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, a person who intends to operate a combined training course shall obtain recognition from the Minister of Employment and Labor, and according to Article 19(4) of the same Act and Article 17(1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof, the Minister of Employment and Labor may recognize the training course that meets the requirements prescribed by the Minister of Employment and Labor, such as training period, time, teachers and instructors, training contents, training facilities and equipment, as an account combined training course. In addition, according to Article 31 of the Regulations on Implementation of the Vocational Skills Development Account (Notice of Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2014-17, Mar. 28, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the "Rules on Implementation") enacted on the basis of the above provision, a person who operates a combined training course in the account must be selected and managed by trainees, and as such, a person who operates the combined training course constitutes "recognition of the combined training course

Meanwhile, according to Article 19(2)(5) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, where a person who operates a training course after being recognized as an "recognition of a training course" has violated the purpose of training, the Minister of Employment and Labor may cancel the "recognition of a training course". According to Article 19(3) of the same Act, with respect to a person whose "recognition" has been cancelled, the "entrusted workplace skill development training" or the "recognition of a training course and a training course for workplace skill development training" may not be recognized for a certain period. In addition, according to Article 19(5) of the same Act, Article 6-3 and [Attachment 1-2] of the Enforcement Rule thereof, Article 6(5) of the same Act and Article 6-3 and [Attachment 1-2] (5] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Minister of Employment and Labor may cancel the recognition of the relevant account combination and delegate the authority of the Minister of Employment and Labor to the head of the relevant regional labor office for six months as seen earlier.

In full view of the statements and the purport of evidence evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 8, D and E, the trainees of the ‘unified Master' training course operated by the Plaintiff, were present on January 13, 2015, but did not receive training until the end from the beginning. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not process the above two trainees at early retirement or outing (see Article 31 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Regulations) and handled them as normally attending the training course on the same day. On the other hand, it is reasonable to see that F, the trainee of the above "certificate of Unauthorized Master's Training" is present at the "certificate of Unauthorized Master's Training, which is one of the accounts operated by the Plaintiff, and therefore, it is reasonable to see that F, the Plaintiff was present at the "certificate of Unauthorized Master's Training," which is a different training course from the above "certificate of Unauthorized Master's Qualifications Development," and that it is against the purpose of the F, which is "No. 2, 196.

Furthermore, sanctions against violations of administrative laws and regulations are sanctions imposed based on the objective facts of violation of administrative laws and regulations in order to achieve the purposes of administration, and it can be imposed even if the violator did not have intention or negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du24371, Jun. 28, 2012) and the following circumstances where the purport of the entire pleadings can be known through the descriptions of evidence Nos. 9 and 10, which are the following circumstances. In other words, the plaintiff cannot be seen as continuing to maintain the aforementioned training in light of the following circumstances: in addition to each process of this case, the plaintiff's operation of six workplace skill development training courses such as "the so-called "the so-called "the so-called", "the so-called "the so-called qualification certificate", "the so-called "the so-called four-day qualification certificate", "the so-called "the so-called four-day practice", "the so-called limitation or restriction on each process of this case."

Therefore, the instant disposition 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 Kim Yong-han

Judges Seo-chul

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.