(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.1.11.선고 2017구합546 판결

2. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the remaining designated parties are dismissed. 3. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the designated parties.

Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of "the date of disposition" in the attached Form shall be revoked each disposition of restriction on the provision of each subsidy and loan as stated in the "amount of each subsidy" column, "additional collection" column, and "the period between the period of restriction on the provision of each subsidy and loan" column.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (designated parties B, hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) and the designated parties (designated parties B, hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) who run child-care centers in the Cheongju-si are changed to the name of the DLifelong Education Center operated by C (EE lifelong Education Center; hereinafter referred to as the “instant training institution”) by entrusting workplace-care teachers belonging to the instant training institution with workplace-care center training (building training) and received subsidies for workplace skill development training expenses equivalent to each corresponding amount indicated in the column of the supply and demand of the attached disposition from the Korea Industrial Manpower Agency during the period from December 2012 to July 2015.

B. After investigating the illegal receipt of subsidies for training courses entrusted by the instant training institution, the Cheongbuk Provincial Police Agency: (a) conspired with the operator of the instant training institution, the Plaintiff, etc. (the total amount of subsidies is at least 300,000 won) to attend the relevant training course less than 80/100 of the training hours recognized by the Plaintiff, etc.; (b) filed a false completion report as if the Plaintiff et al. were not eligible for subsidies; and (c) filed an application for subsidies for workplace skill development training expenses with the Defendant on April 19, 2016, along with a tax invoice prepared as if the Plaintiff et al. were to bear training costs; and (d) the Defendant stated that the aforementioned disposition was conducted by the Plaintiff et al. to the effect that the aforementioned disposition was conducted by the Defendant on the grounds that the Plaintiff et al. did not receive subsidies for training expenses by unlawful means in relation to workplace skill development training; and (d) stated the portion of the attached Form 2 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers on the ground that they received subsidies by unlawful means.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit filed by the Appointed B (Attached No. 110 No. 1) and the Defendant made any disposition that is subject to appeal litigation against the Appointed B. Rather, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was entitled to receive the subsidy while operating the 'F local children' center as shown in the attached disposition No. 3-1 and No. 112, according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments in the attached disposition No. 3-1 and No. 112. It is not G but G, and the Defendant is recognized as having given the return of the subsidy, additional collection and restriction on the loan to G, such as the above disposition No. 112.

Therefore, the lawsuit filed by the Appointor B is unlawful because it does not exist.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition should be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) misunderstanding of facts

In order to receive subsidies, the Plaintiff et al. paid training expenses first to the training institution; however, without knowing that the training conducted by the training institution of this case is less than 80/100 of the training hours recognized, the Plaintiff et al. issued an application for subsidies on behalf of the Plaintiff et al.; and the Plaintiff et al. paid subsidies on behalf of the Plaintiff et al.; and all of the subsidies received were sent to C. However, the Plaintiff et al. did not receive training fees by unlawful means, since the Plaintiff et al. conspired to commit a crime of fraud (or fraud of subsidies) by creating a false tax invoice as if the Plaintiff et al. were paid training expenses, by applying for the reduction class or the lecture that the Plaintiff did not actually attend the training institution and making a false signature on the attendance book for the training trainees who did not attend the training; and the Plaintiff et al.

2) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff et al. should first pay training costs from C, but did not hear that the training conducted by the instant training institution is less than 80/100 of the training hours recognized, and the existence of the tax invoice itself was unaware of the existence of the tax invoice, and the Plaintiff et al. did not use the subsidy for training expenses if it is necessary, and did not have any fact that the Plaintiff et al. used the subsidy for training expenses, the instant disposition is in violation of the principle of proportionality as it goes against the private interest of the Plaintiff et al., which is infringed by the instant training institution rather than the public interest to be achieved.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A) Article 20(1) of the former Vocational Skills Development Act provides that the Minister of Employment and Labor may subsidize expenses incurred by a business owner who conducts vocational skills development training, and Articles 55(2) and 56(2) and (3) of the same Act provide that if a business owner receives subsidies by 'false or other unlawful means', the return of the amount of unlawful payments, additional collection, and restriction on loans may be ordered. The term 'false or other unlawful means' generally refers to all the acts that are not correct under the social norms with the intention to see as if the business owner is not eligible to receive vocational skills development training costs or to conceal the fact that he/she is not eligible to receive such training. On the other hand, if a business owner entrusted vocational skills development training but did not provide training for any trainee, the business owner applied for subsidies differently from the fact that he/she was receiving training, and thus, such act constitutes an unlawful means or other unlawful means even if the business owner did not know that he/she was eligible to receive training.

B) According to Article 20 of the former Vocational Skills Development Assistance Regulations and Articles 8 and 9 of the former Vocational Skills Development Assistance Regulations, a business owner may attend a training course at least 80/100 of the recognized training days and receive subsidies to complete the training course, and the amount of subsidies shall not exceed the training expenses the business owner paid to the entrusted training institution. However, in full view of the respective statements in subparagraphs 1 through 4, 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, the reduction of training hours or signing on behalf of the trainees who did not attend the training institution of this case without complying with the required training hours recognized by Article 20 of the former Vocational Skills Development Assistance Act, and even if the number of days of training (training hours) is below 80/10 of the approved training days (training hours), C is not deemed to have satisfied the requirements for subsidies for vocational skills development training training expenses, and thus, C cannot be deemed to have received subsidies for training expenses of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff, etc., which did not meet the requirements for subsidies for training expenses.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff et al. is without merit.

2) Determination as to whether discretionary power has been exceeded or abused

In light of the legislative intent of the Vocational Skills Development Act that intends to promote the promotion of workers' employment, employment stability, and the enhancement of corporate productivity, and contribute to the development of society and economy, it is highly necessary to strictly punish the illegal receipt of subsidies. The proviso of Article 22-2 [Attachment 6-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that the period of subsidies and loans may be mitigated by up to 1/2 if there is no intention or gross negligence or if the degree of violation is minor, the period of subsidies and loans may be reduced by up to 1/2. However, even if the Plaintiff et al. failed to fully understand the requirements and procedures for receiving subsidies and paid subsidies, if the Plaintiff et al. had paid due attention to the operation of child care centers and paid due attention, whether subsidies and payment procedures are normally being applied for, and even if infant care teachers entrusted with the training center of this case could have been aware of the completion of the training course as prescribed, it is not sufficiently examined, and thus, the degree of the illegal receipt of subsidies has no room for gross negligence, and even if there is no gross negligence.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the Selection B's lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed, and all of the claims of the plaintiff et al. are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.