Revocation of recognition and restriction on entrustment and recognition of six-month courses;

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

3. The disposition stated in Paragraph 1 shall be suspended until the judgment of the appellate court of this case is rendered.

A. The purpose of the Plaintiff is to conduct workplace skill development training to support the autonomous workplace skill development of unemployed persons pursuant to Article 19 of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act and to receive training expenses from the Minister of Employment and Labor.

B. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Minister of Employment and Labor for an integrated review to establish a working-level training program for tour goods consultation (the qualification of Saturdays; hereinafter referred to as “the instant program”). On April 24, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted a software purchase contract with B to purchase a Saturday program. The main contents of the said purchase contract are as follows (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”).

A person shall be appointed.

C. On June 28, 2017, the Plaintiff entrusted the instant process to the Minister of Employment and Labor, setting the training period from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. The details pertaining thereto are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

D. On July 18, 2017, the Board of the Evaluation of Vocational Skills informed that the Plaintiff was recognized as a false evidence even if it did not purchase the Saturdays program, and requested B Company to verify the authenticity of the instant contract. On July 18, 2017, the said Company responded that the instant contract was not a contract written by the said Company.

E. On August 10, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received the content of the aforementioned survey from the Vocational Skills Assessment Board; (b) conducted a telephone survey to B on August 10, 2017; and (c) heard the reply that the instant contract is not written by B, and the official seal on the said contract is not the official seal of B; and (d) on the ground that it is recognized that the Plaintiff submitted a false purchase contract and received training courses recognition on August 17, 2017, even if the Plaintiff did not purchase a training program, which is a training equipment upon applying for the instant process review, submitted a false purchase contract; and (b) pursuant to Article 19 of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act; and Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2] [Attachment 1-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the said Act, a prior notice was issued on September 5, 2017.

F. After undergoing the hearing procedure, the Defendant reduced the part of the disposition, and rendered a disposition to revoke the recognition of the instant process and to restrict the recognition of the entrustment of the six-month period (limited to the period of restriction on recognition of entrustment of the process: from September 16, 2017 to March 15, 2018) to the Plaintiff on September 15, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [this ground for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute any other facts, Gap 1, 3 through 6 evidence, Eul 1 through 7 evidence (including each number), witness D’s testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Plaintiff, but thereafter, it was refused to supply the Plaintiff with the program due to the change in the sales policy of the said company. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have obtained the instant process by false or unlawful means. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful on the ground that there were no grounds for disposition.

In addition, according to the other matters column of the contract of this case, the above contract is a conditional sales contract that provides that the plaintiff obtains approval from the Minister of Employment and Labor, and thus, the Minister of Employment and Labor should attach the conditions at the time of the entrustment to the plaintiff, but there is a defect in the disposition itself recognized without any condition.

Even if the grounds for the instant disposition are recognized, the recognition of the training course can be revoked in the event that the grounds for the revocation of recognition are recognized under Article 19(2) of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act. However, the Defendant’s revocation of the entrustment and recognition of the entire process conducted by the Plaintiff as well as the instant process is unlawful. Moreover, the instant disposition should be revoked as it goes beyond the discretionary power due to its excessive increase in disadvantages incurred by the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) “False or other unlawful means” under the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act as a requirement for the restriction on recognition of entrustment, the order to refund training costs, and additional collection means any and all other active and passive acts that may affect the decision-making on entrustment, recognition, and subsidization of training costs. However, in a case where the workplace skill development training course is recognized by “any false or other unlawful means,” or where training costs are subsidized or loaned, it is subject to restriction on entrustment pursuant to Article 19(3) of the Act, and is subject to criminal punishment pursuant to Article 62-3 of the Act, and is subject to criminal punishment pursuant to Article 62-3 of the Act. Thus, in order to be recognized by “other improper means” or to be supported by “unjustifiable methods,” and thus, to constitute grounds for sanctions under the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act, it should be strictly construed and applied, and it is reasonable to determine that the training costs are not recognized by social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1527161, Dec. 15, 2014).

2) Therefore, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff forged the instant contract and obtained recognition of the instant process from the Minister of Employment and Labor by false or other unlawful means, and there is no other evidence to support the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is so revoked, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is with merit.

① Although the Defendant alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff forged the instant contract, the Plaintiff did not file a complaint or accusation against the Plaintiff on the charge of forging private documents regarding the instant contract while responding to the purport that the instant contract was not prepared by the said company. ② Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s investment in the educational facilities, etc. was reached KRW 63,59,000 for the last three years with the recognition of the vocational ability development training course from the Ministry of Employment and Labor, while the instant process reaches KRW 63,59,00, one of the course (122) recognized by the Plaintiff in 200,000, 20 purchase price for the instant process is merely KRW 6,00,000, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff forged the instant contract to reduce the purchase price for the instant program. Moreover, since it is also possible for the Plaintiff to have applied for the establishment of the course by using the Abaccus program sold by another company, it is difficult to find out the instant motive for the Plaintiff’s unlawful use of the instant contract.

③ On the other hand, with respect to the grounds for denying the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff is an affiliate of the E Group, and the E Group is operating the vocational specialized school, and it changed internal guidelines to prevent the sale of the Saturdays program to the private educational institution other than the authorized educational institution by the Ministry of Education. Unlike the above internal guidelines, the Plaintiff asserts that if B entered into the instant contract with the private educational institution, unlike the above internal guidelines, there is a concern that the employee in charge would suffer disadvantage in personnel affairs, the Plaintiff could have concealed the fact of entering into the instant contract. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion is acceptable in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is difficult to find the reasons or motive for the Plaintiff to exercise the right by forging the instant contract, and the testimony of D’s witness, a witness, who sought advice in the application of the instant process, corresponds to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

④ The instant contract refers to the Plaintiff’s payment of purchase price after obtaining the recognition of the instant process. The Plaintiff, on June 28, 2017, entered into several calls with B Co., Ltd. on June 29, 2017, following the day when the instant process was recognized, is consistent with the content of the instant contract, and this supports the fact that the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with B Co., Ltd. in fact.

⑤ There is no evidence that the Minister of Employment and Labor, at the time of recognition of the instant course, on the condition that the pertinent vocational training institution purchases and directly owns the said program. If it is possible for a vocational training institution to educate trainees using the said program for practical training due to the method of lending earth-wave programs, etc., it would be difficult to readily conclude that the instant course was approved by using the pertinent vocational training institution’s false or other unlawful means.

In this case, according to the above evidence, the Plaintiff provided 19 students of G High School with the education course of this case. The Plaintiff expressed that he would not supply stophs program to the Plaintiff after changing the sales policy. The Plaintiff deposited 600,000 won of stophs program price as a scholarship in return for entrusting a contract to G High School which can purchase the program, and completed stophs program ID from July 17, 2017 to September 12, 2017. According to the above legal principles and the above facts, even if the Plaintiff did not own the above program and carried out the course of this case without holding it directly, it can not be deemed to have been recognized as having been recognized as having not satisfied the requirements for simply obtaining recognition. Thus, it is difficult to view it as having been recognized as having been a false or other unlawful method under the proviso of Article 19(2)1 of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act.

2) Even if the Plaintiff directly owned a Saturday program but was able to obtain recognition of the instant course from the Minister of Employment and Labor. However, even if the Plaintiff did not own the said program and did not directly impose sanctions, it is only reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s portion of the instant course constitutes “where vocational ability development training was conducted in violation of the recognized contents” under Article 19(2) Subparag. 5 of the Act on the Development of Workers’ Vocational Skills. However, according to Article 19(2) proviso 5 of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act, and Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2] 2(a) and (e) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, if the Plaintiff violated the contents recognized to the extent that it would violate the purpose of training, such as training facilities and equipment, the recognition of recognition and recognition of “the pertinent course” can be limited to cases where the Plaintiff violated the purpose of training, or where the degree of intentional or gross negligence or was insignificant, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s measure of occupational ability development training was unlawful prior to its revocation and revocation.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition. According to the records of this case, there is no evidence that the execution of the disposition of this case requires urgent measures to prevent irrecoverable damage caused to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence that the suspension of execution may cause serious damage to the public welfare. Thus, the execution of this case shall be suspended ex officio until the judgment of the appellate court of this case is rendered.

Judges Kim Yong-hwan

Judges Kim Gin-han

I seem to appear.

2) In addition to the instant process, the Plaintiff also has two international medical tourism interpretation and training courses, three training courses for persons engaged in logistics management, and UI/UX quantity of digital design.

Two performance schedule, two training courses for quality management, two multimedia programs, two courses for editing, e-Ok, advertising, and video production have been recognized, and education has been conducted.

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.