Law Firm Han-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. On November 28, 2018, the Defendant’s disposition to revoke recognition of a business owner’s training course (B and C course), six months (from November 29, 2018 to May 28, 2019) (from November 29, 2018 to May 28, 2019), the disposition to restrict recognition of entrustment of the relevant course, and one year and six months (from January 29, 2018 to May 28, 2020) shall be revoked.

(a) Recognition of training courses and receipt of training expenses;

1) The Plaintiff is an incorporated association that operates after-school classes entrusted by elementary schools in Gyeong-nam-do, such as Changwon, Saccin, Tong-gu, Jin, Jinju, Haak-gu, Hamsan, Kimhae-do.

2) On October 25, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained recognition of vocational ability development training courses as follows from the Korea Industrial Manpower Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Industrial Manpower Agency”) pursuant to Articles 20 and 24 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter referred to as the “Vocational Skills Development Act”).

A person shall be appointed.

On December 9, 2017 and December 29, 2017, the Plaintiff deemed that all eligible persons were present and completed the instant training on December 29, 2017. On January 18, 2018, the Plaintiff claimed to the Human Resources Corporation for KRW 985,46, KRW 1,368,675, KRW 379, KRW 4, KRW 760, KRW 6, KRW 73,520, and KRW 6,73,520, total of KRW 6,73,520, which was paid on January 23, 2018.

1) On September 20, 2018, the Defendant issued an order to return the amount of occupational ability development training expenses illegally received by a business owner to KRW 6,733,520, additional collection of KRW 6,733,520, 360 (from September 21, 2018 to September 15, 2019) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the training was not conducted (including false preparation of a attendance record, false completion report), and the payment of training expenses, and issued a disposition to restrict loans (hereinafter referred to as “disposition 1”), on November 28, 2018; six months (from November 29, 2018 to May 28, 2019); six months (in addition, each of the instant dispositions to be taken to recognize the entrustment and restriction on the fixed amount of expenses for occupational ability development training expenses by a business owner; one year and six months (hereinafter referred to as “from November 29, 2018 to May 28, 2019).

2) The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of a disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on January 12, 2018, 20, and 1, and an administrative appeal seeking revocation of a disposition on February 25, 2019, but the appeal was dismissed in entirety.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 2 (including each number), the whole purport of the pleading;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) It is true that the Plaintiff was unable to conduct training at a time and place recognized by the Plaintiff. However, this was distributed to the Plaintiff’s instructors in the border area, and the Plaintiff’s personal circumstances were inevitably changed, and the instant training was conducted normally to the extent that it does not go beyond the purpose of training as indicated below. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received training costs by “a false or other unlawful means.” Thus, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful.

A person shall be appointed.

2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff is somewhat insufficient to conduct the training, and the scope, details, and degree of the training requested by the Plaintiff, the additional collection disposition of the first disposition (hereinafter referred to as “additional collection disposition of this case”) is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff had conducted the instant training normally

A) According to the Act and subordinate statutes on the Development of Vocational Skills, the Plaintiff shall obtain recognition of workplace skill development training courses from the Minister of Labor (Article 24(2) of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills). The details of recognition are the name of workplace skill development training courses, training contents, training period, hours, training methods, training places, training facilities, equipment, teachers, and instructors (Article 22(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills). The training courses shall be training courses for at least two days, training hours for at least 16 hours, and shall be those directly related to the improvement of the worker’s ability to perform his/her duties. They are inappropriate for workplace skill development training programs, such as information exchange activities, sports, and entertainment, and shall be excluded from information exchange activities, such as seminars, symposiums, and current events, and general awareness. In addition, one day training hours shall not exceed eight hours (Article 22(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills, Article 8(1)2 and 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, Etc.

B) “False and other unlawful means” as prescribed by Articles 24(2)2, 55(2)1, 56(2)1, and 56(3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act refers to any act that a person who is not eligible to receive subsidies generally does not have the eligibility to do so and that may have an impact on the decision-making on subsidization of expenses, as an act that is not correct under social norms, with an intention to see the fact that he/she is disqualified or that he/she is not qualified. The act constitutes “other improper means” where a business owner who conducts vocational skills development projects upon recognition of the vocational skills development training course fails to conduct training for a trainee but has filed an application for subsidization differently from the fact that he/she was trained by violating the legal or contractual obligations on the management of rehabilitation for trainees, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1980, Oct. 10, 2014).

C) In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff received training fees by false or other unlawful means without conducting the training as recognized. Each of the dispositions of this case is lawful. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

0 The Plaintiff’s assertion stated, on May 31, 2018, that the training place, time, etc. was inevitably changed due to the individual circumstances of trainees, and that the Plaintiff’s employee in charge of the education planning conducted training by dividing the training courses into different days for each region because there are many trainees who are difficult to attend due to the remote distance even though they had already participated in the training site. Although it was recognized that the instant training was not conducted as recognized, it was judged that the training was conducted as substantially recognized, the Plaintiff claimed training expenses.”

② However, on September 13, 2018, the Plaintiff’s general manager (chief of headquarters) stated in the foregoing investigation that “The main contents of the team meeting were communicated and provided with information, and, in other cases, the team meeting was mainly conducted in carpets or restaurants. The instant training was not conducted normally.” In the same investigation conducted on August 26, 2019, X, the Plaintiff’s instructor, did not undergo the third training from November 4, 2017 to December 23, 2017. The workplace skill development information network received education.

The plaintiff stated that he is an instructor at school without reason to participate in English classes, and Y and Z also stated that he has received training at the time of re-training. 3 The plaintiff submitted the report of the team operation (A 4) and confirmation of each fact (A 6) on the ground that he was normally conducted the training in this case. However, the statements in the above paragraph 2 are not prepared at the time of the team operation, 2017 after the fact that the trainees were not present at the team operation, 30 days after the report of the team operation, and the number of participants present at the team operation is not consistent with the number of trainees, 1 days after the report of the team operation, 20 days after the change, and 1 days after the report of the team operation, and it is difficult to 20 days after the fact that the plaintiff's report of the change was made for the purpose of conducting the training without any reason to verify the number of trainees, 1 days after the report of the team operation, and 2 days after the change.

2) Whether the disposition of additional collection in this case constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary power

In full view of the following circumstances, the aforementioned facts and the entire purport of the arguments, the additional collection disposition of the instant case cannot be deemed to have violated the law that deviates from and abused discretion. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① Since the illegal receipt of subsidies for the development of workers’ vocational abilities not only requires national finance and employment insurance funds, but also causes problems that prevent support from being provided in a place where such support is urgently needed, it should be strictly punished. However, in a case where a business owner who received illegal receipt orders a return of only a amount equivalent to the amount of illegal receipt, it is necessary to prevent the illegal receipt of subsidies through a concurrent disposition, which is equivalent to the amount of illegal receipt, due to the result that the business owner would not be subject to any sanction (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2015Hun-Ba198, Dec. 29, 2016).

② As seen earlier, the Plaintiff received subsidies for training costs by fraud or other improper means despite the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct the instant training. Moreover, it is difficult to deem that there are circumstances to reduce the amount of additional collection pursuant to Article 22-2(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Skills Development Act by voluntarily reporting the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct the instant training. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff prepared a register of trainees’ attendance and that the amount of subsidies received is not significant, it is unreasonable for the Defendant to impose additional collection

③ Article 35(2) and (3) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 56(3)2 of the Vocational Skills Development Act provide that where the return of subsidies is ordered to a person who has received subsidies by fraud or other improper means, additional collection may be made in accordance with the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. According to delegation of Article 56(3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 22-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that “in cases falling under Article 56(3)2 of the same Act, the criteria for additional collection shall be “amount equivalent to the amount of subsidies or loans received by fraud or other improper means.” Such criteria for disposition are not consistent with the Constitution or laws, or are not considerably unreasonable in light of the content and purport of the relevant statutes, the Defendant additionally collected the instant disposition against the Plaintiff within the scope prescribed by

(4) The purpose of subsidies for the development of workers' vocational abilities is to promote public interests by promoting employment stability, improvement of social and economic status of workers and improvement of business productivity through training.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above public interest to be protected by the Plaintiff through the instant disposition is less than the economic loss the Defendant suffered due to the instant disposition.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

Judges Gu Superintendent of the Supreme Court

Judges Lee Byung-chul

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.