2. The Commissioner of the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office for Permanent Residence;

3. The Commissioner of the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office;

2. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, ① the part arising between the Plaintiff and the head of the Daegu Regional Labor Office shall be divided into three parts, and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff; ② the part arising between the Plaintiff and the head of the Daegu Regional Labor Office permanent domicile shall be borne by the head of the Daegu Regional Labor Office; ③ the part arising between the Plaintiff and the head of the Daegu Regional Labor Office permanent domicile shall be borne by the head of the Daegu Regional Labor Office; and ③ the part arising between the Plaintiff and the head of the Daegu Regional Labor Office permanent domicile shall be borne by the head of the Daegu Regional Labor Office.

(a) Payment of training expenses and prior disposition of this case;

1) On March 10, 2008, pursuant to Article 24 of the former Act on the Development of Workers' Vocational Skills (amended by Act No. 9316 of Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act on the Development of Vocational Skills"), the plaintiff was recognized as a vocational skills development training course for the "act of editing motion pictures for the improvement of the job ability of self-employed workers" (the training period: from March 11, 2008 to April 3, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "training of this case").

2) After conducting the instant training on April 11, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for the subsidization of expenses for vocational skills development to the head of the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the Defendant Dae-gu”). On April 21, 2008, the head of the Defendant Dae-gu paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,108,560 for training expenses, and the training expenses for the trainee A include KRW 61,580 for training expenses.

3) The head of the permanent domicile branch of Defendant Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the permanent domicile branch of Defendant Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office”) provided the Plaintiff with KRW 6,689,830 for vocational skills development training expenses from April 21, 2008 to April 20, 2009 pursuant to Article 24 of the former Development of Vocational Skills Act.

4) The head of the old-gu Regional Employment and Labor Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the old-gu Regional Employment and Labor Agency”) provided the Plaintiff with KRW 4,726,720 for training expenses for the vocational skills development pursuant to Article 24 of the former Act from April 21, 2008 to April 20, 2009.

5) As a result of an investigation into whether the management of illegal outflow was conducted, the head of the defendant representative confirmed that a trainee A, who is an employee of the plaintiff, left Korea from March 25, 2008 to April 2, 2008 and was absent for three days on March 25, 2008 among the eight days in total on the day when the above training course was conducted. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20910, Mar. 25, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20610, Mar. 27, 2008>

6) On April 20, 201, the head of the defendant representative decided to recover training expenses for the trainees A pursuant to Article 25 of the former Development of Vocational Skills Act, Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 9315 of Dec. 31, 2008) and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21015 of Sept. 18, 2008), on the ground that the Plaintiff was provided with training expenses by reporting the completion of the normal course for those trainees who did not participate in the training (hereinafter referred to as "prior disposition of this case").

B. Details of the instant disposition

1) On June 21, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff was provided with subsidies by fraud or other improper means without a trainee A’s attendance, Defendant Dae-gu rendered a disposition of revocation of recognition for the process of editing the video (hereinafter “instant first disposition”) and a disposition of restriction on payment (hereinafter “instant second disposition”) set forth in Nos. 1 and 2 on the grounds that the Plaintiff was provided with subsidies by fraud or other improper means.

2) The head of the permanent domicile of the defendant and the head of the Gu/U.S. shall order the plaintiff to return each support training fund listed in the [Attachment 1] Nos. 3 and 4 in accordance with the Disposition No. 2 (Disposition No. 2) of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "Disposition No. 3 and No. 4 of this case").

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the disposition Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of this case

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006).

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul's evidence No. 6, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 35 (1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8429, Aug. 29, 201; Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008) violates the Constitution on the ground that Article 35 (1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 9315, Oct. 18, 2013; and accordingly, the head of the Gu-U.S. headquarters revoked the instant disposition on Oct. 2, 2013; the head of the Gu-U.S. branch office on Oct. 23, 2013; and the head of the Gu-U.S. permanent domicile office on Aug. 28, 201.

Thus, the part seeking revocation of each of the above dispositions among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. Judgment on the first disposition of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The application for a subsidy to a trainee A is only a loss caused by a simple administrative error due to an excessive work performed by the person in charge of education, and is not by fraud or improper means.

2) Since the amount subsidized by a trainee A for vocational skills development training costs of the trainee A is KRW 61,580, the degree of the violation is insignificant and there is no intentional or gross negligence, the instant disposition No. 1 is subject to the enforcement rules of the former Act

Article 9(3) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Development of Human Resources Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 320 of April 1, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule of the former Development of Human Resources Act") shall be mitigated pursuant to Article 9(3) [Attachment 2] of the Guidelines for Measures such as Cancellation of

B. Whether the lawsuit is lawful

In an appeal litigation, a legal interest in a lawsuit refers to a case where there is a direct and concrete interest protected by a law based on the relevant disposition, and it does not constitute a case where there is an indirect or factual or economic interest. If the effective period of an administrative disposition is determined and the validity or execution of the disposition is not suspended, the effect of the administrative disposition is invalidated after the lapse of the above period, and there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition, unless there is any special circumstance to deem that any legal interest is infringed upon by the external form of the disposition after the lapse of the said period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu14148, Oct. 17, 1995; 2002Du1946, Jul. 8, 2004).

The former Act on the Development of Skills provides that ① a person whose recognition of the relevant training course is revoked shall not be entrusted with the occupational ability development training under Article 16 (1), a subsidy under Articles 20, 22, and 23, or a recognition under Article 24 within the scope of five years from the date of revocation thereof (Article 25 (2)), except where the cost of the subsidy is less than one million won by fraud or other improper means (Article 22-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), and ② a return of all or part of the amount of subsidy already provided or loaned may be ordered, and the amount of subsidy may be additionally collected from the amount of subsidy already provided by fraud or other improper means (Article 25 (4)).

However, the training recognition of this case has already terminated the duration (from March 11, 2008 to April 3, 2008) and thus its validity is lost in June 21, 201, which was at the time of the first disposition of this case, and it cannot be subject to cancellation any further, and there is no disadvantage due to the first disposition of this case.

In addition, as a disciplinary measure against a person whose recognition of training courses has been revoked, Article 25 (4) of the former Act on the Development of Vocational Skills is revoked ex officio. The sanctions under Article 2 (2) of the same Act cannot be imposed because the costs that the Plaintiff received by false or other unlawful means are less than one million won, and there are no special circumstances to deem that the Plaintiff’s legal interest is being infringed or is likely to be infringed due to the remaining appearance of the first disposition.

Thus, there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the first disposition of this case as the plaintiff, and this part of the lawsuit is unlawful.

C. Whether the first disposition of this case is legitimate (family judgment)

Even if there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of the first disposition of this case, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit as follows.

1) Whether it was made by fraud or other improper means

"False or any other fraudulent means" under Article 25 (1) 2 of the former Development of Human Resources Act means all the acts that are not correct by social norms in order for a person who is not eligible to receive expenses to pretend as if he/she is qualified or to conceal the fact that he/she is not qualified, and that may affect the decision-making on the payment of expenses, and "expenses" means the expenses incurred in the work that is supported by a business owner who conducts workplace skill development training for workers.

Article 9(3) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Skills (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 320 of Apr. 1, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule of the former Act on the Development of Skills") of the same Act upon delegation of Article 25(5) of the former Act provides that "no intention or gross negligence exists" as one of the circumstances in which a measure for mitigation of sanctions can be taken. In light of the contents, form, and system of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the meaning and character of the aforementioned expenses, such as the provision of sanctions even if a trainee did not receive training, if a business owner who was recognized as a vocational skills development training course requests training differently from the fact that he/she had received training due to a violation of the legal or contractual obligations related to the training of a trainee, it shall not be actually paid for training expenses, so even if the business owner knew that he/she did not receive training, it shall be deemed that it constitutes "any fraudulent method" (see Article 16(1)7)1)2)1.7

The following circumstances are revealed by evidence, including Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, i.e., the list of trainees of the instant training: (i) overseas travel using annual paid leave from March 25, 2008 to April 2, 2008; and (ii) it is essential to verify the attendance of the Plaintiff as if the Plaintiff participated in the training, even if the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff participated in the training for 3 days during the eight days of the instant training day (3 days of March 25, 2008; March 27, 2008; April 1, 2008; and (iii) it is necessary to verify that the Plaintiff participated in the training, not the entrusted training, but the training was planned by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff was merely 18 trainees, and thus it is easy for the Plaintiff to participate in the training.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Whether a disposition should be mitigated

Article 25 (1) of the former Act on the Development of Vocational Skills provides that "Where a person who has obtained recognition of a vocational skills development training course falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Minister of Labor may issue a corrective order or revoke the recognition of the relevant training course: Provided, That in cases falling under subparagraph 1 or 2, the recognition shall be revoked," while subparagraph 2 provides that "where he/she receives, or intends to receive, subsidies or loans for, expenses by fraud or other improper means."

In light of the form, structure, or language of the provision, the revocation of recognition for a person who has obtained recognition of workplace skill development training courses by fraud or other improper means is not a discretionary act but a binding act.

On the other hand, Article 9(3) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Development of Skills Act provides that "if a person who has obtained recognition of a training course commits an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 25(1) of the former Development of Skills Act, he/she shall take a corrective order, the cancellation of recognition, or the restriction on recognition in accordance with the individual standards: Provided, That where the person has no intention or gross negligence, or the degree of violation is minor, he/she may take measures to reduce it within the scope of 1/2 (or a corrective order in cases of revocation of recognition) of the individual standards."

However, in light of the form, structure, or language of Article 25(1) of the former Development of Abilities Act, it is reasonable to deem that the foregoing provision applies only to cases falling under Article 25(1)3, 4, and 5, which are discretionary action.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion on the premise that mitigation of the disposition of this case is possible is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the lawsuits of this case are unlawful and dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance has different conclusions by revocation of the defendant's official authority, and all of the lawsuits of this case are dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant under Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-chul

Judges Kim Gung-sik

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.