Revocation of Return Disposition

Head of the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office Port Office

All claims and remaining designated parties shall be revoked, and all lawsuits falling under the revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the remaining Appointeds.

The order of return of the subsidy stated in the corresponding column shall be revoked by the defendant (Appointed Party) and the remaining designated parties of the case for the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning each of the following dispositions shall be revoked. On May 24, 2011, the order of return equivalent to 64,608,100 won by the defendant (appointed party) against the plaintiff, and the order of return of the subsidy in the corresponding column 2's "amount of decision of recovery" issued by the remaining designated parties against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

[This part of the appeal was excluded from the scope of the party member’s trial, and the purport of the appeal was reduced as well as the reduction of the purport of the appeal, following the Plaintiff’s appeal as to the part of the claim for revocation of the return order of KRW 215,780 and the additional collection amount of KRW 215,780, which the Defendant (Appointed Party) received against the Plaintiff on May 24, 2011.

A. On June 16, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract for business owner's vocational ability development training with the Korea Pox VI University Campus, and conducted the following training course for 717 employees of the Plaintiff company (hereinafter "the instant training course").

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On August 25, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for the cost of workplace skill development training with the Defendant (the appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) and received subsidies of KRW 38,679,280 on 29.38,679,280. The above training costs included KRW 215,780 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant subsidies”).

C. On May 24, 2011, the Defendant rendered an overseas trip to the Plaintiff, “A, C, and D shall be treated as having been present even if they did not participate in the instant training course due to holiday leave, and received training expenses by false or other unlawful means,” Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8429, May 11, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “former Employment Insurance Act”); Article 35(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 56(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21015, Sep. 18, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 25(1) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 2008).1.

D. The Appointor's Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office, the Gangnam Branch of Seoul Local Employment and Labor Office, the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office, and the head of Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office issued each order of return of each subsidy stated in the "amount of recovery decision" column in attached Form 2, for reasons such as the first disposition, and related statutes (hereinafter collectively, "the second disposition, the third disposition, the fourth disposition, and the fifth disposition" in the order of each order of return of subsidy stated in 2 or 5, and "the part of the order of return of expense limit amounting to 64,608,100 won" and "the two or five dispositions" in the first disposition).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 2, 6, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2 (including provisional number, hereinafter the same), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part concerning each of the dispositions of this case among the lawsuits of this case is legitimate

We examine ex officio.

A. If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition becomes void 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).

B. According to the evidence No. 7 and the purport of the argument No. 5, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on August 29, 2013 on the ground that Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act violates the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation under Article 75 of the Constitution (201Hun-Ba390). Accordingly, the defendant issued a return order to the plaintiff on October 15, 2013, the amount limited to 64,608,100 won during the first disposition against the plaintiff, and the head of the Busan Regional Employment Agency of Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency of the Selection for the plaintiff on October 18, 2013, and the head of the Gangwon-do Regional Employment and Labor Agency of the Selection for the plaintiff on October 28, 2013, and the head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency of the Selection for the plaintiff on October 29, 2013 ex officio cancelled each disposition against the plaintiff on November 21, 2013.

C. Therefore, the part seeking the revocation of each of the instant dispositions among the instant lawsuits is unlawful as it is subject to non-existent dispositions, as it does not have any interest in the lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of each disposition of this case is unlawful, and it shall be dismissed in its entirety. Since the part concerning each disposition of this case in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with the conclusion different, it shall be accepted by the plaintiff's appeal and revoked it, and all of the lawsuits falling under the revoked part shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the remaining designated parties in accordance with Article 32 of

Judges Lee Jong-chul

Judges Kim Gung-sik