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

A. Under Article 24 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter referred to as the "Vocational Skills Development Act"), the head of an education and development institute (hereinafter referred to as the "head of an education institute") has obtained recognition of workplace skill development training courses conducted by an employer from the Minister of Employment and Labor and conducted workplace skill development training from 2008 to 2013, and conducted workplace skill development training for child care teachers at the commission of an employer. The above workplace skill development training conducted by the head of an education institute refers only to the above training conducted for at least 1-month vocational skills development training, which is conducted for at least 2-month vocational skills development training, based on the provision on workplace skill development support for business owners, which is publicly notified by the Minister of Employment and Labor (see Article 20 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, and the provision on workplace skill development training for at least 1-month training (referring to the provision on workplace skill development support, which is conducted for at least 4 months.).

B. The Plaintiff is operating a child-care center in Mapo-gu, Seoul. The Plaintiff entrusted the workplace skill development training to the head of the child-care center. As such, D et al., which is the above child-care center, was registered as trainees in the workplace skill development training course as seen above, conducted from July 15, 2012 to September 14, 2012. Furthermore, under the premise that D et al. completed workplace skill development training conducted in the above training course, on October 16, 2012 (Article 60 of the Act and Article 52(2)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Minister of Employment and Labor entrusted the above Corporation with the authority to subsidize expenses prescribed in Article 20 of the same Act). The Plaintiff did not receive 616,00 won in total from the 60th of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills, based on the aforementioned 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 3th of the 6th of the 6th of the 3th of the son training.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 10, 14, 16, Eul evidence No. 15-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) the existence of the reasons for the measure;

According to the main sentence and subparagraph 1 of Article 55 (2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, if an employer has received subsidies under Article 20 of the same Act by fraud or other improper means, the Minister of Employment and Labor may choose not to grant subsidies or loans under Articles 17, 18, 20, 22, and 23 of the same Act for a period prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor not exceeding three years from the date on which the employer received subsidies. Accordingly, Article 22 of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act and attached Table 6-2 of the same Act provide that the employer shall not provide subsidies or loans under Articles 17, 18, 20, 22, and 23 of the same Act for the period prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor.

Meanwhile, according to Article 56 (2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, the Minister of Employment and Labor may order an employer whose loans are restricted pursuant to Article 55 (2) of the same Act to return the amount of loans received by fraudulent or other illegal means out of the amount of loans already provided by the said employer. Furthermore, according to Article 56 (3) main sentence and Article 56 (2) 2 of the Vocational Skills Development Act and Article 22-2 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Minister of Employment and Labor may additionally collect an amount equivalent to the amount of loans received by the said employer by fraud or other improper means if the Minister orders the employer whose subsidies and loans are restricted by the said act

In this context, “false or other unlawful means” means all unlawful acts conducted by a business owner who is not eligible to receive subsidies, such as pretending to be eligible to receive subsidies or verifying the eligibility to receive subsidies (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4272, Jun. 11, 2009). Moreover, according to Article 60 of the Vocational Skills Development Act and Article 52(1) main sentence and Article 10 and Article 52(1)10, and 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the authority to restrict subsidies or loans pursuant to Article 55 of the Vocational Skills Development Act and the authority to order the return of subsidies and to additionally collect them are delegated to the head of each local employment and labor office.

However, according to “the process of dispositions”, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was provided by the Korea Industrial Manpower Agency that provided training costs for D, etc., which would be 616,00 won (an amount equivalent to 10% or more per annual average of the Plaintiff’s annual subsidies and loans) only when it was normally completed, while performing workplace skill development training by entrusting D, etc., who is a child care teacher of the child care center that was operated by the Plaintiff, and conducting workplace skill development training as prescribed in Article 20 of the Vocational Skills Development Act. Thus, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff received 616,000 won from the Korea Manpower Agency of Human Resources by performing active or passive acts that could affect the decision of the Korea Manpower Agency of Human Resources Development regarding subsidization of the above expenses, and by receiving 616,00 won from the Korea Manpower Agency of Human Resources Development.

The plaintiff shall be deemed to have received subsidies pursuant to Article 20 of the Vocational Skills Development Act by fraud or other improper means.

Therefore, the head of the local employment and labor office, who is delegated with the authority by the Minister of Employment and Labor, may impose a disposition on the Plaintiff to restrict the provision of subsidies and loans under Article 17, 18, 20, 22, and 23 of the same Act for 300 days based on Article 5(2) main sentence and 1 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 22 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 22 of the same Act [Attachment Table 6-2](1) of the same Act, and order the Plaintiff to return KRW 616,00 that the Plaintiff received by fraudulent or other illegal means pursuant to Article 56(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, and may additionally collect an amount equivalent to the above KRW 616,00 from the Plaintiff based on Article 56(3) main sentence and 2 of the Act, Article 22-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts to the purport that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the grounds that the plaintiff only entrusted occupational ability development training for infant care teachers and did not participate in such activities as seen above, that it is impossible for the general public, such as the plaintiff, to supervise the above actions of the long-term education requiring high technology, and that it is a victim who paid training fees for the long-term education, that it is improper for the defendant to recover money equivalent to twice the expenses the plaintiff was subsidized to the plaintiff even if the defendant recovered the training fees paid to the long-term education, and that the defendant would also be responsible for the defendant's failure to thoroughly manage and supervise the long-term education recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor as the vocational ability development training course.

However, the Plaintiff’s employer who operates a child care center pursuant to Article 20 of the Vocational Skills Development Act.

It seems that it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff is obligated to finally verify whether a person who is a subject of workplace skill development training has entrusted training to a workplace childcare teacher, regardless of whether the training was conducted in a normal manner. ② According to the aforementioned review, the Plaintiff is obligated to conduct the training in accordance with the provision on support, i.e., whether D, etc. is being conducted at least once a week by accessing the web site and submitting a study task at least once a week, and it can be easily confirmed whether the above training is being conducted in a normal manner by asking whether D, etc. is being conducted at least once a month. However, if the Plaintiff received the training cost for D, etc. from the Human Resources Development Service of Korea without confirming the above, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff did not err in its determination, and rather, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff is liable to create an environment where the training was conducted in a reasonable manner as seen earlier by neglecting the above verification measures, and that the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the duty to operate the training in a more efficient and transparent manner than that of the Plaintiff in the instant case.

In conclusion, the instant disposition is legitimate as a disposition based on the relevant statutes, such as Articles 55(2) and 56(2) and (3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act.

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.