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

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation that produces and sells TV, cell phones, and other electronic equipment, was recognized as a vocational skills development training course pursuant to Article 24 of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers”) for each vocational ability training course listed in the attached Table 1’s Schedule of Disposition (hereinafter referred to as the “instant training course”) around 208.

B. The plaintiff was paid KRW 120,40, and KRW 81,720,00, and KRW 180,620,000 for the third trainee A of the training course of this case on the day indicated in the column for the "payment date of expenses" of the first trainee A of this case by applying for business owner's vocational skills development training expenses to the defendant. The defendant was paid KRW 120,40,00 for the third trainee B of the training course of this case, and KRW 180,620 for the third trainee C of this case. The defendant was treated as having attended the training course of this case due to the plaintiff's overseas business trip and could not participate in the training course of this case. The defendant was ordered to submit the training course of this case in a false or other unlawful manner and was paid the training expenses of this case to the plaintiff, and the total amount of the training expenses of this case by 120,000,000,000 won for the first trainee of the training course of this case.

D. On November 15, 201, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, which was dismissed on February 28, 2012.

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows. The plaintiff's assertion is based on no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, Eul's evidence 1, and Eul's evidence 1.

The Plaintiff’s application for a training subsidy for A, B, and C is merely an error in work and lacks a subjective requirement to detect the absence, which is not by fraud or improper means.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Facts of recognition;

A. According to the report of the completion of the instant training (No. 2), eight persons, including A, who completed the instant training course. Persons who completed the instant training course are 15 persons including B, and those who completed the instant training course are 13 persons including C.

B. A, B, and C included in the list of trainees of the instant training courses, but did not appear in the instant training courses due to an overseas business trip, the signature of them is written as if they were present in the attendance book (Evidence No. 3).

A person shall be appointed.

C. After implementing the instant training courses, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant into the “HD-Nt Information Network for Workplace Skill Development” into the Defendant, and reported trainees A, B, and C with the attendance of the instant training courses, and attached a list of those who completed the training courses, and attached the list of those who completed A, B, and C to apply for the cost of workplace skill development training.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry B in the evidence of Nos. 2 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

5. Determination,

A. Sanction against violation of administrative laws is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of administrative laws and regulations to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, barring any special circumstance, such as a failure to perform the duties of the violator, there is no intention or negligence on the part of the violator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du5972, May 26, 2000; 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003); and “any other fraudulent means” under Article 25 of the former Development of Skills Act means all unlawful acts conducted to conceal the eligibility of an unqualified business owner or the lack of eligibility to receive new employment promotion incentives, which may affect the decision-making on the payment of employment promotion incentives (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du4272, Jun. 11, 2009; 2002Du757, Feb. 1, 2005).

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the facts of recognition as follows, i.e., (i) it is essential to prepare the attendance record as they are paid according to the attendance attendance, and (ii) the Plaintiff’s employee entered false statements in the attendance record as if they participated in the instant training course; (iii) the instant training course was conducted at the Plaintiff’s own training site and the trainees were merely 8 to 15, and thus it was easy to attend the training course; and (iv) the Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the training course was due to the Plaintiff’s issuance of an overseas business trip order, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was well aware of the fact that A, B, and C did not attend the training course before applying for the training subsidy. In light of the fact that even if he was unaware of it, he could have sufficiently known if he did not paid due attention, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-nam

Judges Choi Jae-in

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.