(a) a disposition of restricting the payment from March 1, 2008 to February 29, 2009 on July 21, 201, and an order to return training expenses of 324,769,280 won following the said disposition;

B. A disposition to restrict payment from March 1, 2009 to October 14, 2009, and an order to return KRW 110,626,430 as a result of the said disposition, shall be revoked in entirety.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the business of manufacture, sale, operation, excavation, etc. in the field of energy environment, resources, industrial materials, etc.

B. The plaintiff is to conduct workplace skill development projects for its employees and entrusted them to the Private Teaching Institutes B by the defendant (the training period from October 2, 2007 to October 2, 2007).

10. 23.) The 2008 Commercial Practice I-Finc (Training Period: from May 28, 2008 to June 18, 2008) course was recognized as a vocational skills development training course. After implementing the above training course, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the same amount of 128,110 won on February 29, 2008 on the ground that he completed the above 'welve Utilization Value Practice' course, and that his employee D, E, and F completed the 'Commercial Practice I-Finc' process, the 2008 company account, and received the same amount as the Plaintiff’s company account on October 14, 2008. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20630, Feb. 29, 2008>

D. The Board of Audit and Inspection has secured a list of trainees who entered or depart from the Republic of Korea during the training period for each of the above training courses and requested the Ministry of Employment and Labor to conduct an investigation on the withdrawal management of trainees. According to the results of the investigation, the Defendant: (a) from October 7, 2007 to October 17, 2007; (b) from May 25, 2009 to May 29, 2009; (c) from May 25, 2009 to May 29, 2009; (d) from June 8, 2009 to June 12, 2009, the Plaintiff was provided with each of the above orders issued under Article 35 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21500, Oct. 26, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act”). (c) Each of the above orders issued under Article 2015 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act.

E. As to this, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on October 18, 201, but all part of the instant disposition was dismissed on February 28, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 5 evidence (including each number)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff received subsidies for education and training expenses including training expenses from the Defendant by negligence or mistake without recognizing the illegal withdrawal of C, D, E, and F, merely because the Plaintiff received subsidies for vocational skills development training expenses from C, D, E, and F by fraud or other improper means. The instant disposition that deemed that the Plaintiff received subsidies for vocational skills development training expenses from C, E, and F by fraud or other improper means is unlawful.

(2) Article 56(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act”) provides that a person shall order the return of all training expenses paid for one year from the date of illegal receipt to the whole amount of training expenses paid for the year from the date of illegal receipt is null and void in violation of the purpose of delegation under Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, which is a mother-based legal entity. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the above

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to the Plaintiff’s first argument

Inasmuch as sanctions imposed on violations of administrative laws are sanctions imposed based on the objective fact of violation of administrative laws in order to achieve administrative purposes, barring any special circumstance, such as where a failure to perform duties is not caused by an intentional act or negligence, it may be imposed even on the violator, barring any special circumstance, such as where there is a justifiable reason not to do so. The term "false or other unlawful means" means all unlawful acts conducted in order to conceal the eligibility of a business owner who is not eligible to receive, or is not eligible to receive, vocational skills development training expenses (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4272, Jun. 11, 2009), which may affect the decision-making on the payment of vocational skills development training expenses (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4272, Jun. 11, 2009), it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received vocational skills development training expenses by false or other unlawful means. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

(A) Although the Plaintiff was obligated to verify whether C, D, E, and F, an employee of the Plaintiff, was actually present at each training course of this case, the Plaintiff neglected such duty and applied for reimbursement of training expenses for them without undergoing verification procedures as to whether they were actually present. Furthermore, considering the Plaintiff’s departure from the Republic of Korea through the Plaintiff’s occupational business trip, the Plaintiff appears to have known or could have known that the Plaintiff could not complete the training course due to his absence on the training day, and it is difficult to deem that there was a justifiable reason for not verifying his/her presence. Furthermore, if the Defendant had known in advance that the Plaintiff applied for the training as if he/she was actually present at each training course of this case, he/she had not paid the Plaintiff any subsidy. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s act affected the Defendant’s decision-making regarding the payment of the subsidy as a fraudulent act committed by a business owner who is not entitled to receive the subsidy.

(2) According to Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, the Plaintiff’s second assertion provides that a person who has received, or intended to receive, training costs, etc. for vocational skills development training by fraud or other improper means (hereinafter “unlawful recipients”) shall be obligated to pay training costs, etc. for one year and shall be fully returned to the person who has paid training costs, etc. during the period of restriction on payment. The disposition ordering the establishment of a period of restriction on payment and the return of subsidies granted during the period of restriction on payment pursuant to the above provision is a binding act.

1) First, we examine whether the provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case satisfies the legitimacy of the legislative purpose and the requirements for the appropriateness of the means. The purpose of the provision of this case is to prevent misconduct in relation to the payment of training expenses, etc. and ultimately to promote the development and improvement of workers’ vocational ability through the restriction on payment of training expenses, etc. for one year against illegal recipients and the order to refund subsidies paid within the restriction period, and to strive for the development and improvement of workers’ vocational ability. In addition, considering that workplace skill development training is conducted with limited public resources, such as the Employment Insurance Fund under the Employment Insurance Act, the purpose of the provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case is to reduce misconduct in relation to the payment of training expenses, etc. through punitive sanctions stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of this case. Accordingly

2) Next, we examine whether the provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case satisfies the requirements for minimum damage. It is reasonable to view that the administrative agency has broad discretion in choosing the means of sanctions against the violation of statutes. If the method of choice is not obviously erroneous in prediction or evaluation, it cannot be said that the method of choice violates the minimum principle of damage. The provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case does not impose additional duties on the illegal recipient, but merely recovers training expenses paid to the illegal recipient, etc., and thus, it is difficult to see that the choice of the means of sanctions is clearly erroneous.

3) 마지막으로, 이 사건 시행령 조항이 법익의 균형성 요건을 갖추었는지 여부에 관하여 살펴본다. 관계 법령의 문언 내용과 앞서 인정된 사실 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 고용보험법 제35조 제2항은 징벌적인 의미로서 거짓이나 그 밖의 부정한 방법으로 지급받은 금액에 상당하는 액수 이하의 금액을 징수할 수 있도록 규정하고 있고, 이에 따라 구 근로자직업능력 개발법(2008. 12. 31. 법률 제9316호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제25조 제4항 제1호, 구 근로자직업능력 개발법 시행령(2009. 3. 31. 대통령령 제21398호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제22조의 2, 구 근로자직업능력 개발법 시행규칙(2009. 4. 1. 노동부령 제320호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제9조 제1항은 과거 5년 동안 거짓 그 밖의 부정한 방법으로 비용을 신청한 횟수 등을 기준으로 추가로 징수할 금액을 세분하여 정하고 있는 점, ② 이 사건 시행령 조항은 위 추가징수처분과는 별도로 부정수급자에 대하여 의무적으로 1년간 지원을 제한하도록 규정하는 동시에 위 지급제한기간 내에 지급된 지원금에 대하여 반환하도록 규정하고 있어 위 추가징수처분과 마찬가지로 징벌적 제재의 성격을 가지고 있는 한편, 위 추가징수처분과는 달리 위반행위의 내용이나 정도에 따른 가중, 감경 등의 세부적인 기준을 정함이 없이 일률적으로 1년간의 지급제한 및 그 지급제한기간에 지급된 지원금 전액의 반환만을 규정하고 있는 점, ③ 그로 인해 통상 반환명령의 대상이 되는 지원금은 부정수급액에 비하여 매우 큰 금액이 될 수 있고 이 경우 부정수급자가 예상할 수 있는 범위를 현저히 초과함으로써 그 위반행위의 내용, 정도 등에 비추어 지나치게 가혹한 결과를 초래할 수 있는 점(실제로 원고의 경우 부정수급액은 327,150원에 불과함에도 지급제한기간 중 지급받은 지원금은 435,395,710원에 달한다), ④ 또한, 이 사건 시행령 조항은 지급제한의 기산일을 제재처분일이 아닌 '훈련비용을 받거나 지급신청을 한 날'로 명시하고 있어 부정수급자로서는 제재처분을 받기 이전에 이미 지급받았던 지원금을 소급하여 반환하게 되는 경우가 많은데, 부정수급자가 1년간 훈련비용 등에 대한 지급이 제한될 것이라는 사정을 미리 알았더라면 그 기간 중 훈련과정을 탄력적으로 실시하여 반환대상이 되는 금액을 줄일 수도 있었을 것으로 보이는 점, 6 나아가 이 사건 시행령 조항은 '훈련비용을 받거나 지급 신청을 한 날'로부터 1년간의 지급제한 및 지급제한기간에 이미 지급된 지원금에 대한 의무적인 반환명령을 규정하면서도 위 제재처분을 할 수 있는 기간에 특별히 제한을 두고 있지 않아 부정수급자의 지위가 장기간 불안정해지는 문제가 발생하는 점, 6 한편, 고용보험법에 따라 사업자에게 지원되는 직업능력개발 훈련비용은 직접적으로 근로자의 직업능력의 개발과 향상 등을 위해 사용되고 그 결과 사업자가 간접적으로 숙련된 근로의 제공이라는 혜택을 누리게 되므로 그 전액의 환수가 의심의 여지없이 정당화된다고 보기는 어려운 점 등에 비추어 보면, 부정수급자에 대하여 추가징수처분 외에 징벌적 제재를 중복하여 규정함으로써 그 입법목적을 보다 효율적으로 달성할 수 있다고 하더라도 이 사건 시행령 조항은 그로써 달성하고자 하는 공익과 그로 인하여 원고가 입게 되는 사익 사이에 현저하게 균형을 잃어 무효라고 봄이 상당하다(2010. 2. 8. 대통령령 제22026호로 개정된 고용보험법 시행령 제56조 제2항은 부정수급자에 대한 1년간의 지급제한을 규정하면서도 '다만, 지원금이나 장려금을 받은 날부터 3년이 지난 경우와 거짓이나 그 밖의 부정한 방법으로 지급받거나 받으려고 하는 금액이 300만 원 미만으로서 최초로 부정행위가 적발된 경우에는 1년 동안의 지급제한을 적용하지 아니한다'라는 제한을 두었고, 2010. 12. 31. 대통령령 제22603호로 개정되어 현재 시행 중인 고용보험법 시행령 제56조 제2항은 '제35조 제1항에 따라 거짓이나 그 밖의 부정한 방법으로 제1항에 따른 각 지원금 중 어느 하나의 지원금을 받거나 받으려 한 자에 대하여 고용노동부장관은 제1항에 따른 반환명령 또는 지급제한을 한 날부터 1년의 범위에서 새로 지원하게 되는 제1항에 따른 각 지원금 중 어느 하나에 해당하는 지원금에 대해서는 별표 1에 따른 기간 동안 지급을 제한한다. 다만 그 부정한 방법의 정도, 동기 및 결과 등을 고려하여 그 지급제한기간의 3분의 1까지 감경할 수 있다'고 규정하고 있는바, 이는 이 사건 시행령 조항의 문제점에 대한 반성적 고려의 결과로 보인다).

4) Ultimately, the Defendant’s instant disposition based on the invalid provision of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Cho Hon-ho

Judges Kim Tae-hee

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.