2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

On April 6, 2017, the Defendant revoked the recognition of the 18 process, including the essential statutory curriculum for one employee, for the Plaintiff, and revoke the two-year entrustment and restriction of recognition.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the grounds for the defendant's assertion in the court of first instance are identical to the allegations in the court of first instance, and all evidence submitted in the court of first instance are examined, the judgment of the court of first instance that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received training expenses from the State by fraud or other improper means, unless there is any evidence to view that the plaintiff's payment of expenses was made on behalf of each business owner, as part of the workplace, offline education, and overseas training for the officers and employees subject to use of the expenses, unless there is any evidence to support that the plaintiff's payment was made on behalf of each business owner by fraud or other improper means).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-young

Judges Lee Jong-hwan