2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

10. J

11, K

12. L.

13. M;

14.N

15.O

16. P;

17. Qua

18. R

19. S;

20. Telecommunication

21. U;

22. V

23.W;

24. X

25. Y

26. Z;

27. AA

28. AB

29. AC

30. AD;

31. AE;

32. AF;

33. AG;

34. AH;

35. AI;

36. AJ

37. AK;

38. AL;

39. AM;

40,N

41. AO

42. AP;

43. A Q

(a) on February 12, 2016: (a) each disposition to return, and additionally collect, the amount of unjust enrichment received by Plaintiff A, K, X,Y, and AG;

B. On February 17, 2016, Plaintiff B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, L, R, U,W, W, AF, AK, AL, AP, and Q, each of the illegal receipt and return of the amount of money and additional collection made against Plaintiff J on February 17, 2016. On February 17, 2016, the portion exceeding KRW 1,597,796 of the illegal receipt and return of money and additional collection made against Plaintiff J in relation to AR childcare centers, and the portion exceeding KRW 1,17.570 of the disposition and additional collection made against Plaintiff J on February 17, 2016;

D. On February 17, 2016, the portion exceeding KRW 1,027,057, respectively, of a disposition to return the amount of illegal receipt and a disposition to additionally collect the amount that Plaintiff M;

E. On February 17, 2016, the portion exceeding KRW 1,530,453, respectively, among dispositions taken against Plaintiff N on the return of unlawful receipt amount and additional collection:

F. On February 17, 2016, the portion exceeding KRW 3,376,764, respectively, of the disposition to return the illegally received amount and to additionally collect the amount that the Plaintiff received with respect to the Plaintiff;

G. On February 17, 2016, the portion exceeding KRW 590,287, respectively, among dispositions taken against Plaintiff AB on the return of unlawful receipt and additional collection;

H. On February 17, 2016, the part exceeding KRW 707,891, each of the dispositions taken against Plaintiff AD to return the illegally received amount and the additional collection shall be revoked.

2. Each claim of the Plaintiff P, Q, S, T, V, Z, AA, ACE, AH, AI, AJ, AM, and AO, and all remaining claims of the Plaintiff J, M, N,O, AB, and AD are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit:

A. The part arising between the Plaintiff A, K, X, Y, AG, C, D, E, G, H, I, L, R, U,W, AF, AK, AL, AP, Q and the Defendant is borne by the Defendant;

B. The part arising between the Plaintiff P, Q, S, T, V, Z, AA, AC, AE, AH, AI, AJ, AM, and AO is borne by the said Plaintiffs. The portion arising between the Plaintiff J, N and the Defendant is borne by the Plaintiff J, N, and the remainder, respectively.

D. 25% of the portion arising between the Plaintiff M and the Defendant is assessed against the Plaintiff M, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

C. 75% of the portion arising between the Plaintiff 0 and the Defendant is assessed against Plaintiff 0, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

F. 30% of the portion arising between the Plaintiff AB and the Defendant shall be borne by the Plaintiff AB, and the remainder by the Defendant respectively.

G. 90% of the portion arising between the Plaintiff AD and the Defendant is borne by the Plaintiff AD, and the remainder by the Defendant respectively.

A. The Plaintiffs are those operating child-care centers at Suwon-si.

B. The Plaintiffs concluded an entrustment contract for workplace skill development training with AT education center (hereinafter “instant education center”) and had their employees conduct workplace skill development training, and received subsidies from the Defendant. The Defendant: (a) on February 17, 2016 (attached Form 1 for some Plaintiffs indicated in the purport of the claim, on the ground that the Plaintiffs applied for training fees and received subsidies by unlawful means for workers who participated in training of less than 80% of the total training hours from 2012 to 2014; (b) on February 17, 2016, the Plaintiffs (attached Form 1) against the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

D. On May 9, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of each of the instant dispositions with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a decision to dismiss all the Plaintiffs’ claims on October 21, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Non-existence of grounds for disposition

Plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H were subject to a disposition by an investigative agency to the effect that they were not suspected of being in connection with the illegal receipt, and the rest of the Plaintiffs were not found guilty of most of their illegal receipt in the relevant criminal cases against AU. As such, the Plaintiffs did not have received the cost of workplace skill development training, and thus, each of the instant dispositions was unlawful.

(b) deviation from and abuse of discretionary authority;

Even if the grounds for the disposition against some plaintiffs exist, the defendant can separately take a disposition to refund subsidies to AU; the education center of this case was negligent by the defendant's negligence with the institution recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor as an institution to guide and supervise the education center of this case; the plaintiffs believed this and followed the instructions of the education center of this case; the plaintiffs committed the act of defraudation of training expenses according to the AU plan; and the plaintiffs did not gain any particular benefit therefrom; each disposition of this case of this case (additional collection in particular) is unlawful since it exceeded and abused discretionary power.

3. Relevant statutes;

[Attachment 2] The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

4. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion that there is no ground for disposition

1) Unless there are special circumstances in administrative litigation, an administrative agency should assert and prove the legality of the pertinent administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Du8107, Jan. 16, 2001).

Article 8(1)1 of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers provides that the Minister of Employment and Labor may grant subsidies to employers who conduct workplace skill development training (Article 20) (Article 55). The Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers provides that employers may restrict subsidies if they receive subsidies by fraud or other improper means (Article 55), and may order the employers to return the subsidies received by fraud or other improper means out of the subsidies that have already been granted, and may additionally collect an amount not exceeding the amount of unjust subsidies (Article 56). In addition, Article 8(1)1 of the former Act on the Support for the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2015-14, Dec. 31, 2015) provides that “The Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers may provide subsidies for at least 80/100 of the number of days of training recognized as the relevant training course (at least 80/100 of the training hours recognized as 30 hours).

However, with respect to Plaintiff A, B, C, E, F, G, H,N, and AP by the evidence submitted by the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that the training hours of the teachers belonging to childcare centers operated by the said Plaintiffs were not less than 80% of the training hours recognized, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and it is difficult to deem that the said Plaintiffs received the cost of vocational skills development training by fraud or other improper means. Rather, according to the statement of evidence No. 7, it is recognized that the part corresponding to the illegally received amount of money against the said Plaintiffs in a criminal case related to AU (UU District Court 2015Da2991) is not prosecuted.

Therefore, the disposition to return and additionally collect the amount of illegal receipt of the Plaintiff A, B, C, E, F, G, H,N, and AP is unlawful.

2) Meanwhile, the fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence, and thus it cannot be recognized that the facts are inconsistent with this, barring any special circumstance where it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the relevant criminal trial, and the same applies to the administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du10424 delivered on November 26, 199, etc.).

According to the evidence of evidence Nos. 6 and 7, AU is indicted for the facts that "AU manipulates the attendance rate and completion of education expenses of infant care teachers, who are entrusted education subjects, and that they were paid education expenses by issuing false statements that they did not receive education expenses from employers who operate child care centers, including the plaintiffs, and at the same time received subsidies by false application or other unlawful means." The court of first instance (U.S. District Court 2015No. 291) found that the evidence of "I.S. District Court 2015No. 2991" submitted by the Prosecutor's Office concerning the plaintiffs [Attachment 1] of the facts charged that "I.S. High Court 201 U.S. High Court 200 U.S. High Court 2000 U.S. High Court 201000. High Court 2010. High Court 2010. High Court 201.

Therefore, the portion exceeding KRW 1,57.57 of the disposition on the return of unlawful receipt and payment and the disposition on the additional collection with respect to Plaintiff D, I, K, L, L, M, W, X, Y, AF, AG, AK, AK, AL, and Q, and the disposition on the additional collection with respect to the return of unlawful receipt and payment with respect to the AR Child Care Center related to Plaintiff J, and the portion exceeding KRW 1,597,796 of the disposition on the return of unlawful receipt and payment with respect to the ASS Child Care Center and the disposition on additional collection with respect to the return of unlawful receipt and payment with respect to the ASS Child Care Center, each of which exceeds KRW 1,177.57 of the disposition on the return of unlawful receipt and payment with respect to the Plaintiff M, the portion exceeding KRW 1,530,453 of the disposition on the return of unlawful receipt and payment with respect to the Plaintiff and the disposition on additional collection with respect to the respective amount exceeding KRW 3,376,746,79787 of the respective disposition on the return of unlawful receipt and additional collection.

B. Determination as to the assertion of deviation or abuse of discretionary power (hereinafter in this case, the remainder of each disposition, excluding the illegal part, shall be considered only)

1) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the substance of the act of violation as the ground for the disposition, the public interest achieved by the act of violation, and all the relevant circumstances, etc. In this case, where the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that of the administrative agency's internal rules for handling affairs, and it is not effective externally by the citizens or courts. The legality of the disposition should be determined in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, not only by the above criteria but also by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, the above criteria for disposition cannot be deemed legitimate merely because they meet the above criteria for disposition. However, unless the above criteria for disposition do not conform to the Constitution or laws, or if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the sanction administrative disposition in accordance with the above criteria for disposition is considerably unreasonable in light of the content of the act of violation as the ground for disposition, and the content and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it shall not be determined that such disposition has exceeded the scope of discretion or abused discretion (see, etc.).

2) According to Articles 55(2)1 and 56(2), (3), and (5) of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act, where expenses were subsidized by fraud or other improper means, the Minister of Employment and Labor may issue an order to return the illegally received amount of money and impose an additional collection for the amount of money wrongfully received, which is a sanction therefor, and the detailed criteria, etc. for additional collection are prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. Accordingly, Article 22-2(1)2 and 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act provides that a business entity shall additionally collect subsidies, etc. for additional collection (Article 56(3)2 of the same Act), in principle, if the business entity unlawfully received or received subsidies, etc. (Article 56(3)2 of the same Act). However, the said provision shall be mitigated

3) In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, each of the dispositions in this case appears to have complied with all the above disposition standards, and even if the plaintiffs did not actively conspired with the AU, it appears that the plaintiffs did not actively guide and supervise whether workers participating in the vocational education and training course completed the course, and the violation has been committed for a long time, and the above subsidies are used for a long period of time, and there is a need for public interest to prevent illegal receipt through substantial sanctions against the illegal recipients, there is no error of deviation from or abuse of discretionary authority on each of the dispositions in this case solely based on the circumstances asserted by the plaintiffs.

5. Conclusion

(1) If so, the respective claims of this case against the plaintiff A, K, X, Y, Y, C, D, F, G, H, I, L, R, U,W, W, AF, AK, NA, AP, and Q for reasons, and the claims of this case against the plaintiff J. M. N,O, AB, AB, and AP are accepted for reasons within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed for lack of reasons. (3) The claims of this case by the plaintiff P, Q, T, T, V, Z, AA, ACE, AE, AH, AH, and PO are dismissed for lack of reasons.

Judges fixed-type case

Judge Choi Jong-hoon

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.