2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Each disposition described in the attached Form 2 List against the Plaintiff on August 10, 2011 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's legitimacy shall be dismissed.

This Court's explanation is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the other hand, on July 15, 2011, the Defendant issued a three-month restriction on recognition of the previous training course against the said Ring Center on the ground that the Defendant illegally received training costs of KRW 1,707,880 from the Ring Center (hereinafter referred to as “Ling Center”), which is a training establishment under the Plaintiff’s control, and at the same time received training costs of KRW 1,00,000 to KRW 5 million.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition to the following: (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in Article 2-A(a) of the reasoning of the judgment; and (c) the same is cited in accordance with

In addition, since the amount of support received by the Plaintiff should be calculated for each training establishment, not all training facilities, the amount of support received by the Plaintiff shall be 93,976 won only. Nevertheless, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff received a subsidy of at least one million won, thereby making the disposition of restriction on recognition of this case against the disposition standards stipulated in the former Enforcement Decree and Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act, and thus, the disposition of restriction on recognition of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether each of the dispositions revoking recognition of the instant case is legitimate

A) "False or other unlawful means" that consisting of Article 25 (1) 2 of the former Act on the Development of Vocational Skills refers to all acts that are not correct under the social norms in order for a person who is not eligible to receive training costs to make a decent and passive act that may affect the decision-making on the payment of training costs, and "training costs" refers to expenses that are paid by a person who has obtained recognition of the vocational ability development training course (hereinafter referred to as "operator of training course") in return for training.

Article 13(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2269, Jul. 12, 2010) provides that sanctions may be imposed even in cases where a person does not have intention or gross negligence. Article 9(4) and [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 12, Jul. 12, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers”) include one of the matters to be considered in establishing the specific guidelines for sanctions under Article 13(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22269, Jul. 12, 2010).

B) Based on these legal principles, it is possible to find out the following circumstances, i.e., health class back to the instant case, and health class based on the aforementioned facts and evidence, i.e., (i) support of occupational ability development training expenses is determined depending on the attendance of trainees, (ii) the purpose of occupational ability development training is to be calculated according to the training hours, and (iii) the operator of the training course is required to provide strict training management for trainees in order to prevent unfair claims for training expenses; (ii) the Plaintiff neglected such basic duties and neglected the attendance management to prepare false training records; and (iv) the Defendant applied for the payment of training expenses with false attendance records attached; (iii) the Plaintiff did not have paid training expenses to the Plaintiff; and (iv) the Plaintiff did not apply for the payment of training expenses upon the knowledge of the circumstance that the trainees signed in advance or signed by proxy; (iii) if the Plaintiff did not have paid considerable attention to the establishment of internal guidelines on the completion management of training expenses, the Plaintiff’s act can not be viewed as having received false training records from the Plaintiff’s training institution without any justifiable reason.

Therefore, the revocation of each recognition of this case is clear that the grounds for the disposition stipulated in Article 25 (1) 2 of the former Act on the Development of Work Skills exist. Thus, the prior plaintiff's assertion is rejected on different premises.

2) Whether the instant restriction disposition is legitimate

Article 9(4) and [Attachment 2] 1-A-9 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that training facilities for those who have obtained recognition of training courses shall be divided into branches, sub-branches, etc., and where the recognition of training courses under Article 24 of the former Vocational Skills Development Act and the evaluation of training institutions under Article 39 of the same Act are conducted for each unit of branch, sub-branch, training institute, etc., the criteria for disposition shall apply to each unit of branch, sub-branch, training institute, etc. The fact that training facilities under the Plaintiff-affiliated are divided into regions and are conducted for each training establishment is not disputed between the parties concerned. In this case, the criteria for disposition shall also apply to each training facility under the Plaintiff-affiliated.

However, on July 15, 201, the Defendant issued a disposition to restrict the recognition of the previous training course for three months to the said mining center on the ground that the Defendant unlawfully received training costs of one million or more but less than five million won from the said mining center. On August 10, 2011, the Defendant again issued a disposition to restrict the recognition of the instant three-month period on the same ground that the said mining center received training costs of one million or more but less than five million won at the same time. Accordingly, the instant disposition to restrict the recognition of the instant case constitutes a duplicate disposition for the same subject matter, and thus, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, each of the dispositions listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the revocation disposition of recognition of this case is legitimate. The restriction disposition of recognition of this case is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of recognition of this case, and the remaining claims are dismissed for lack of justifiable grounds. The judgment of the court of first instance that revoked all of the dispositions listed in the separate sheet No. 2, upon acceptance of the plaintiff's claim, is unfair for different conclusions. As such, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant ordering the cancellation of each disposition listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which was issued by the defendant against the plaintiff on August 10, 201, shall be revoked, the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and the remaining appeal by

Judges Nown Korea

Judge Lee Ro-man

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.