The following facts may be admitted, either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers, the same as Eul evidence 6), Eul evidence 1 through 5, and 7, by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. The Plaintiff obtained recognition of vocational skills development training courses from the Defendant, and conducted each of the occupational ability development training programs (hereinafter referred to as “each of the training courses of this case”) for its employees from March 13, 2009 to March 12, 2010.

1)

A person shall be appointed.

B. After implementing each of the training courses in this case, the Plaintiff applied for training expenses for vocational skills development to the head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency.On August 2010 and September 2010, the Board of Audit and Inspection and the Ministry of Employment and Labor verified that part of the trainees of each of the training courses in this case were unfairly provided for training expenses as follows: (a) as a result of the investigation into whether they were subject to the management of illegal entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea during the training period for vocational skills development training; (b) as a result of the investigation into whether some trainees of the training courses in this case were later signed in the attendance book or who were present in the overseas stay period by means of proxy signature

[Attachment 2]

A person shall be appointed.

D. Based on the above findings, on August 10, 201, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke recognition of each of the instant training courses (hereinafter referred to as "disposition to revoke recognition of each of the instant training courses") and a disposition to restrict recognition for three months (hereinafter referred to as "instant recognition restriction disposition") pursuant to Article 25(1)2 and 25(2) of the former Act on the Development of Workers' Vocational Skills (amended by Act No. 10338, May 31, 2010; hereinafter referred to as "former Vocational Skills Development Act").

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received training expenses equivalent to KRW 1,230,00 for trainees who did not actually attend each of the instant training courses, but this was merely attributable to the Plaintiff’s failure to thoroughly manage the progress of the training course, and the Plaintiff did not receive subsidies for expenses due to the Plaintiff’s false or other unlawful means, such as filing an application for support for training expenses with the Plaintiff with false physical attendance or with knowledge of such fact, etc. Therefore, each of the instant dispositions on cancellation of recognition does not exist, and thus, the instant disposition on cancellation of recognition is unlawful, and as long as the instant disposition on cancellation of recognition is unlawful, the instant disposition on the premise that it is legitimate and valid, is also unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Sanction against a violation of administrative regulations is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of administrative regulations in order to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, barring any special circumstance, such as where there is any justifiable reason not to cause any negligence on the duty of the violator, it may be imposed by intention or negligence on the violator (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003). However, if the relevant administrative disposition-based statute provides not only the objective result of the violation of administrative regulations in relation to the subject matter of sanctions but also the special form of action or method of action that leads to such a violation as a requirement for the relevant administrative disposition, in order to establish the grounds for the administrative disposition, the objective result of the violation of administrative regulations is insufficient, and it should be recognized that such attitude or method of action is mobilized or accompanied by such act in the course leading to that result.

In light of such legal principles, Article 25 (1) 2 of the former Vocational Training Act provides that if a person who has obtained the recognition of vocational ability development training courses obtains or intends to obtain subsidies or loans by fraudulent or other illegal means, the recognition of the relevant training courses shall be revoked. This does not include all cases where a person who has obtained the recognition of vocational ability development training courses receives or intends to receive subsidies based on the objective facts different from the objective facts, but is subject to the disciplinary measure, that is, the recognition of the relevant training courses. However, it is reasonable to deem that such cases are subject to the disposition where the person is mobilized or accompanied by the specific form or method of "any other improper means" in the course of receiving subsidies based on such false facts.

2) Regarding the instant case, the fact that the Plaintiff received training expenses equivalent to KRW 1,230,00,00, including that the trainee C, etc. of each of the instant training courses from the date on which the Plaintiff did not attend the training course is recognized as above. However, the following facts revealed by the facts acknowledged as above are as follows: ① the act of false attendance for each of the two to six days of trainees by each of the training courses, which appears to be attributable to the fact that the trainee’s unilaterally signed or signed on behalf of the trainee in the attendance book; ② the Plaintiff’s failure to properly manage the attendance of the trainee, but the Plaintiff did not appear to have applied for training expenses without being involved in the aforementioned false attendance, and ③ the content, circumstance, scale, and the economic degree of the Plaintiff’s gain from the above act, etc., and the Plaintiff’s failure to receive training expenses cannot be seen as falling under the act of false attendance or any other unlawful means, or the Plaintiff’s failure to receive training expenses by taking account of the fact that each of the instant training courses could not be considered as being accompanied by the Plaintiff’s failure to receive training.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is illegal because the grounds for the cancellation of recognition are not recognized. According to the provisions of Article 25(2) of the former Vocational Skills Development Act, the restriction of recognition of this case is premised on the legitimacy and validity of each of the dispositions of this case. Thus, as long as each of the dispositions of this case cannot be exempt from revocation due to its illegality, the restriction of recognition of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Park Jae-woo

Judges Park Gin-uri

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.