사업주직업능력개발훈련비용반환명령등취소
2015Nu57866 Revocation, such as an order to refund workplace skill development training expenses.
A
The Commissioner of the Central and Central Regional Labor Agency;
Suwon District Court Decision 2015Gudan992 Decided August 12, 2015
November 20, 2015
January 15, 2016
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s revocation of the return of expenses incurred in workplace skill development training and disposition of additional collection and restriction on loans against the Plaintiff on June 17, 2014 (from June 17, 2014 to June 11, 2015) is each revoked.
1. Quotation of the first instance judgment
The reasoning of the court in this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition, and thus, it is also accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination by this Court
【Plaintiff’s Claim】
Since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received training costs by fraud or other improper means, there is no ground for disposition. The Defendant’s disposition is an abuse of discretion or a deviation from its limit, as it considerably lacks balance between the content of the offense and the relevant disposition.
[Judgment] The above assertion made by the plaintiff in this court is not different from the contents of the plaintiff's assertion in the first instance court. The first instance court rejected the plaintiff's assertion even if all of the evidence presented in the first instance court were examined.
Determination is justified.
○ Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides, “A lawsuit for revocation may be instituted by a person who has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition. This provision shall also apply to a person who has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition, etc. even after the effect of the disposition, etc. is extinguished due to the lapse of the period, the execution of the disposition, etc., or any other cause.” Meanwhile, if the effective period of the disposition is specified and the validity of the disposition is not suspended, there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition, since the validity of the disposition is invalidated upon the lapse of that period. However, if there are circumstances to deem that there is a violation of legal interest due to the remaining disposition after the lapse of that period, there is a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Du168
In this case, the defendant's disposition of restriction on loans (from June 17, 2014 to June 11, 2015) has lost its validity upon the lapse of June 11, 2015, but it may be subject to restriction within three years where a person who has received restriction in accordance with the individual criteria under attached Table 6-21(a)(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers repeatedly becomes subject to restriction. Thus, the plaintiff has a legal interest to seek revocation in order to prevent any disadvantage under the above provision even after it has lost its validity.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim, is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing plaintiff.
For the same judge of the presiding judge;
Judge Shin Jae-hun
For the purpose of judge sex impulse