2. On January 12, 2011, the Defendant’s disposition of restricting the course of vocational skills development training for all curriculum is revoked: (a) three months (from January 12, 2011 to April 11, 201) recognition of the vocational skills development training course for all curriculum; (b) one year (from January 12, 201 to January 11, 201) support for all curriculum; (c) a disposition of refunding subsidies 4,753,700 won; and (d) a disposition of additionally collecting KRW 4,753,700, respectively.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. One-third of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant.

(a) Recognition of workplace skill development training courses for spatial information systems and elementary level curricula;

1) On May 28, 2009, pursuant to Articles 24(1) and 45 of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 1037, May 31, 2010; hereinafter the same), the Plaintiff applied for recognition of a spatial information system first-class curriculum (hereinafter referred to as “instant curriculum”) conducted by the Intellectual Training Institute for employees belonging to the Defendant as a workplace skill development training course.

구 「근로자직업능력 개발법」(2010. 5. 31. 법률 제10337호로 개정되기 전의 것)○ 제20조(사업주 등의 직업능력개발사업 지원)① 노동부장관은 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 직업능력개발사업을 하는 사업주에게 그 사업에 필요한 비용을 지원하거나 융자할 수 있다.1. 근로자 직업능력개발훈련(위탁하여 실시하는 경우를 포함한다)○ 제24조(직업능력개발훈련과정의 인정)①) 제20조 제22조 및 제23조에 따라 직업능력개발훈련을 실시하려는 자(위탁받아직업능력개발훈련을 실시하려는 자를 포함한다)와 제21조 제1항 제1호에 따라 근로자가 훈련비용을 지원 또는 융자받을 수 있는 직업능력개발훈련을 실시하려는 자는그 직업능력개발훈련과정에 대하여 노동부장관으로부터 인정을 받아야 한다.○ 제45조(권한의 위임·위탁)노동부장관은 이 법에 따른 권한의 일부를 대통령령으로 정하는 바에 따라 지방노동관서의 장 또는 지방자치단체의 장에게 위임하거나 공공단체의 장 등 대통령령으로 정하는 자에게 위탁할 수 있다.◆ 구「근로자직업능력 개발법 시행령」 (2010.7.12. 대통령령 제22269호로 개정되기 전의 것)○ 제34조(권한의 위임·위탁)① 노동부장관은 법 제45조에 따라 다음 각 호의 권한을 지방노동관서의 장에게 위임한다.6. 법 제24조에 따른 직업능력개발훈련과정의 인정에 관한 사항7. 법 제25조에 따른 부정행위 지원 제한 등에 관한 사항14. 법 제40조에 따른 지도·감독 등에 관한 사항

2) The Defendant recognized the instant curriculum as the vocational ability development training course by the end of June 2, 2009 and ending on June 1, 2010.

B. Implementation and reporting of the instant curriculum

1) From June 22, 2009 to June 26, 2009, the Plaintiff provided the instant curriculum at a cadastral training institute for its employees.

2) Pursuant to Article 40(1)2 and (3) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, Article 2(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 1, Jul. 12, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 6(3)1 of the Regulations on the Requirements, etc. for Training Courses and Training (Ministry of Labor Notice No. 2008-120, hereinafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiff shall file a report on the implementation of training to the Defendant by June 22, 2009, which is the date of commencement of training, within the above period.

3) Pursuant to Article 40(1)2 and (3) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, Article 22(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, and Article 6(3)2 of the Regulations on the Requirements, etc. for Training Courses and Training, the Plaintiff shall report to the Defendant who completed the training within 14 days from June 26, 2009, which is the end of the training, and did not do so within the above period.

Article 40 (Guidance, Supervision, etc.) (1) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (Amended by Act No. 10337, May 31, 2010) (amended by Act No. 10337) (1) of the Ministry of Labor shall require any of the following persons to submit a necessary report or data, or require relevant public officials, etc.

(1) A person who conducts workplace skill development training entrusted by the Minister of Labor pursuant to Article 22 (1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 1 of July 12, 2010) (1) (1) Article 16 of the Act and a person who has obtained recognition of a training course pursuant to Article 24 of the Act shall report to the Minister of Labor the following matters at a time determined and publicly announced by the Minister of Labor pursuant to Article 40 (1) and (3) of the Act:

1. Report on the implementation of a training in attached Form 7 (the list of trainees, training schedule, training consignment contract, documents related to confirmation of eligibility for trainees, etc. for which the course is finalized): By the beginning date of the training. (The report on the person who completed the training course in attached Form 8 is omitted): from the end of the training to 14 days from the end of the training. (The short part omitted)

4) On November 9, 2009, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on the same day, as if the instant curriculum had been commenced. On November 13, 2009, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on November 16, 2009, as if the instant curriculum was completed.

C. Payment of subsidies for the instant curriculum

1) On October 18, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for the payment of subsidies for the instant curriculum to the Defendant.

2) The Defendant on October 28, 2010 pursuant to Article 20(1)1 of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers on October 28, 2010

The Plaintiff paid KRW 4,753,700 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant subsidy”) to the Plaintiff as a subsidy for the instant curriculum.

D. Revocation, etc. of recognition of the occupational ability development training course of the instant curriculum

1) On January 12, 201, the Defendant revoked the recognition of the instant curriculum in accordance with Article 25(1)6 of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers and Article 24(2)2 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter referred to as “instant curriculum”) on the ground that the Defendant applied for the instant curriculum as if the Plaintiff provided the instant curriculum from November 9, 2009 to November 13, 2009, on the ground that: (a) as the Plaintiff provided the instant curriculum, the Plaintiff did not comply with the reporting order by reporting the implementation of training and the completion of the training or by making a false report; or (b) as if the instant curriculum was conducted from November 13, 2009 to November 13, 2009; and (c) received the instant subsidy by fraud or other improper means (hereinafter referred to as “reasons 2”); and (d) the recognition of the instant curriculum in accordance with Article 24(2)2 of the Workplace Development Act (amended by Act No. 1037, May 31, 2010).

Article 25 (Restriction, etc. on Support due to Cheating) (1) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (Amended by Act No. 10337, May 31, 2010) (Article 25 (Restriction, etc. on Support due to Cheating) (1) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers) (amended by Act No. 1037, May 31, 2010) (Article 24) where a person who has obtained recognition of workplace skill development training course under Article 24 falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Minister of Labor may order correction or cancel recognition of such training course: Provided, That in cases falling under subparagraphs 1 through 3, the recognition shall be cancelled; 2.

(c) Individual standards (amended by Act No. 1037, May 31, 2010) Article 24 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 10337, May 31, 2010) (2) If a person who has obtained recognition of workplace skill development training courses under paragraph (1) falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Minister of Labor may issue a corrective order or revoke recognition of such training courses: Provided, That in cases falling under subparagraphs 1 through 4, recognition shall be revoked:

A person shall be appointed.

2) On January 12, 2011, the Defendant decided not to recognize the vocational skills development training course of the instant curriculum for one year from January 12, 2011 to January 11, 2012 pursuant to Article 25(2) and (1)6 of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers on grounds of the grounds of disposition 1 (hereinafter “instant restriction on recognition of one year for the instant curriculum”).

Article 25 (Restriction, etc. on Support due to Cheating) (1) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (Amended by Act No. 10337, May 31, 2010) (amended by Act No. 1037) (1) Where a person who has obtained recognition of workplace skill development training courses pursuant to Article 24 falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Minister of Labor may issue

(Attachment)6. With respect to a person who fails to comply with an order to report and submit data under Article 40, or whose recognition has been revoked under paragraph (1) of this Article by fraudulent means (distinctly omitted), the entrustment of workplace skill development training under Article 16(1), subsidies under Article 20, Article 22, Article 23, or recognition under Article 24 may be omitted within five years from the date of revocation.

3) On January 12, 2011, the Defendant decided not to recognize all curricula conducted by the Plaintiff for three months from January 12, 2011 to April 11, 201, pursuant to Article 24(3) and (2)2 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers on grounds of disposition 2, 2011 (hereinafter “instant restriction on recognition for three months during the previous period”).

A person (including a person who intends to conduct workplace skill development training after being entrusted with workplace skill development training) who intends to conduct workplace skill development training pursuant to Articles 24 (Recognition, Revocation, etc. of Recognition of Workplace Skill Development Training Courses) and 20 and 23 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 1037, May 31, 2010) shall obtain recognition from the Minister of Labor regarding the workplace skill development training course. (2) If a person who has obtained recognition of workplace skill development training course pursuant to paragraph (1) falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Minister of Labor may issue a corrective order or revoke recognition of the training course (Provided, That omitted).

(3) With respect to anyone whose recognition has been revoked pursuant to paragraph (2) (the omission of the main sentence), the entrustment of workplace skill development training under Article 16 (1) and the recognition under paragraph (1) or Article 19 need not be granted within the limit of five years from the date on which the revocation is revoked.

4) On January 12, 2011, the Defendant decided to restrict the subsidization of expenses for all curriculum provided by the Plaintiff for one year from January 12, 2011 to January 11, 2012 pursuant to Article 55(2)1 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers on grounds of disposition 2 (hereinafter “instant restriction on subsidization for one-year period”).

(2) Article 17, 18, 20, 22 and 23 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 1037, May 31, 2010) (2) The Minister of Labor may restrict the participation in workplace skill development training under Articles 12 and 15 or may not receive subsidies or loans under Articles 17, 18, 20, 22, 22 and 23 for a period prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor within three years from the date (the date the recognition is revoked in cases falling under subparagraph 2) on which the human resources development council or the organization of workplace skill development falls under any of the following subparagraphs:

5) On January 12, 2011, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to return the instant subsidy amounting to KRW 4,753,700 pursuant to Article 56(2) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “instant disposition of return”) and ordered the Plaintiff to additionally collect KRW 4,753,700 pursuant to Article 56(3) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “instant disposition of additional collection”).

「근로자직업능력 개발법」 (2010. 5. 31. 법률 제10337호로 개정된 것)○ 제56조(부정수급액의 반환 및 추가징수)② 노동부장관은 제19조 제2항이나 제24조 제2항에 따라 인정이 취소된 자 또는제55조 제2항에 따라 수강 또는 지원 융자가 제한되는 근로자나 사업주, 사업주단체 등, 산업부문별 인적자원개발협의체 또는 직업능력개발단체가 이미 지원 또는 융자받은 금액 중 거짓이나 그 밖의 부정한 방법으로 지원 또는 융자받은 금액의 반환을 명할 수 있다.③ 국가·지방자치단체 또는 노동부장관은 제1항 및 제2항에 따라 반환을 명하는 경우에는 거짓이나 그 밖의 부정한 방법으로 지원 또는 융자를 받은 금액에 대하여고용노동부령으로 정하는 기준에 따라 다음 각 호의 금액을 추가로 징수할 수 있다.1. 제16조 제2항에 따라 위탁계약이 해지된 자 또는 제19조 제2항이나 제24조 제2항에 따라 인정이 취소된 자: 다음 각 목의 구분에 따른 금액가. 부정수급액이 대통령령으로 정하는 금액 미만인 경우: 그 금액의 5배 이하의 금он액나. 부정수급액이 대통령령으로 정하는 금액 이상인 경우: 그 금액 이하의 금액2. 제55조에 따라 지원 융자 또는 수강이 제한되는 근로자나 사업주, 사업주단체 등,산업부문별 인적자원개발협의체 또는 직업능력개발단체: 부정수급액 이하의 금액

E. The plaintiff's appeal

1) On March 23, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking the revocation of each of the dispositions in this case. The Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for administrative appeal on July 19, 2011. 2) The Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of each of the dispositions in this case on October 11, 2011. [Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 14, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as well as the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

(a) Whether grounds for disposition are recognized as one;

Pursuant to Article 40 (1) 2 and (3) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, Article 22 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, and Article 6 (3) 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Requirements, etc. for Training Courses and Training, the Plaintiff shall report to the Defendant on the implementation of training by June 22, 2009, which is the date of commencement of training, and shall report the completion of training within 14 days from June 26, 2009, which is the date of commencement of training.

However, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff did not report each of the above periods within the above period, and reported on November 9, 2009, as if the instant curriculum commenced on November 9, 2009, and reported on the implementation of training on November 13, 2009, as if the instant curriculum completed, and that the Plaintiff reported on November 16, 2009, which completed the instant curriculum, falls under the case of failing to comply with an order to report or making a false report.

Therefore, the grounds for disposition 1 is recognized.

(b) Whether grounds for disposition are acknowledged two.

“A case where a person who is not eligible to receive subsidies is provided with subsidies by fraud or other improper means” means a case where a person was provided with subsidies by committing an act that is not correct by social norms in order to pretend as if he/she is disqualified or to conceal the lack of eligibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du3777, Jun. 8, 2013; 201Du24764, Jul. 24, 2014).

As long as the Plaintiff obtained recognition of the occupational ability development training course with respect to the instant curriculum on June 2, 2009 and conducted the instant curriculum from June 22, 2009 to June 26, 2009, it may be deemed that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive subsidies for expenses incurred in the instant curriculum pursuant to Articles 20(1)1 and 24(1) of the former Act on the Development of Workers’ Vocational Skills. As long as the Plaintiff has the above qualification, even if the Plaintiff did not properly report training implementation and completion report in the process of receiving the instant subsidy, such circumstance alone does not constitute the case where the Plaintiff received subsidies by fraudulent or other illegal means (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du24764, Jul. 24, 2014).

Therefore, 2 reasons for disposal are not recognized.

C. Whether each disposition of this case is unlawful

1) The Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking recognition on the grounds of the grounds of the grounds of the disposition Nos. 1 and 2, and as long as the grounds of the disposition are not acknowledged, the instant disposition revoking recognition cannot be deemed unlawful.

2) The Defendant issued a one-year restriction disposition on recognition on the ground of one-year restriction on recognition on the pertinent process on the ground of the grounds of the disposition, and as long as the grounds of the disposition are recognized as one-year restriction on recognition on the pertinent process, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

3) On the ground of the grounds of disposition 2, the Defendant: (a) imposed a restriction on recognition for three months during the entire course of the instant case; (b) a restriction on support for one year during the entire course of the instant case; and (c) a return of the instant subsidy; and (d) an additional collection of the instant subsidy; and (b) the instant disposition

3. Conclusion

A. Of the Plaintiff’s claim, the restriction of recognition for three months during the entire course of the instant case, and the restriction of support for one year during the entire course of the instant case - the return of the instant subsidy - the revocation of the additional collection disposition of the instant case should be cited for reasonable grounds. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this is unfair with different conclusions, and thus, the relevant part is revoked

B. The part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of the recognition of this case and the revocation of the recognition restriction of one year in the pertinent process should be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part of the judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, the Plaintiff’s appeal against this part is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds above.

Judges Hatho

Judges Kim Gin-han