(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.1.29.선고 2014구합5204 판결

The Defendant’s termination of the contract against the Plaintiff on July 25, 2014, and revocation of the restriction on the recognition of the entrustment of the relevant process for one year (the limitation period between July 26, 2014 and July 25, 2015).

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 2, 1992, the Plaintiff was operating the Development Institute (hereinafter referred to as the “Development Institute”). From the Minister of Employment and Labor on January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff was selected as an entrusted training institution for national key and strategic industries occupational categories in 2014, and on January 28, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to enter into an entrustment contract with the Defendant on the CAM training course (contract period between February 13, 2014 and February 7, 2014, and 11) and entered into an entrustment contract with the Defendant on February 12, 2014. On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded the entrustment contract with the Defendant on each of the instant training courses referred to as “each of the instant training courses” (contract period from March 25, 2014 to August 29, 2014; hereinafter referred to as “30/4 of each of the instant training courses”).

B. On July 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) organized the CAM training course by separating classes at will; (b) provided auxiliary teachers, other than regular teachers, with respect to certain number of persons, who do not perform the training, regardless of the training schedule; and (c) provided self-training for the total number of 39 hours per day in the mechanical manual assembly training course; and (d) provided “electronic application training”, other than the national core and strategic industry occupational training curriculum, for 39 hours per day in total, 16(2)3 of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act (hereinafter referred to as “Vocational Skills Development Act”); and (e) provided self-training for trainees who wish not to perform the training at the second floor for 2nd class training course; and (e) recognized that the instant training course was subject to restriction on the period of 20 years or less pursuant to attached Table 13(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as “Specialized Employment Development Act”); and (e) attached Table 16(2)13-13) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.

1) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

The training instructors of each of the training courses in this case conducted lessons in preparation for national qualification examinations differently from the course at the request of trainees, and trainees conducted lessons by separating the degree of understanding of training courses from each other. In this process, some trainees did not err by misapprehending the mechanical processing practice, and it cannot be deemed that they violated the entrustment contract to the extent that it would violate the purpose of training.

2) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

Even if the Plaintiff violated a consignment contract, considering that it is the result of the request of trainees for employment, the instant development institute designated as a class A in the evaluation of the Ministry of Employment and Labor in 2012 and 2013, and that it is the only place where the instant development institute conducts the mechanical design and processing in B, the instant development institute constitutes a minor violation of Article 6-1-1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act, and thus, the instant disposition otherwise constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, even if it can be mitigated within the scope of 1/2 of the standard set forth in the individual standard, and thus, constitutes a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract with the Defendant for each of the instant training courses, and the Defendant agreed that the contract may be terminated pursuant to Article 16(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 13(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule, and Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act.

2) On March 24, 2014, upon the resignation of a training teacher during each of the instant training courses, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for change of an entrustment contract with the content that the training teacher of the CAM training course is temporarily changed from D to E (F for training instructors) from March 27, 2014, and the Defendant consented thereto on March 27, 2014, and the Plaintiff filed an application for change of the entrustment contract with the Defendant from April 7, 2014 to G from D for change of the training teacher from D to April 22, 2014 (the Plaintiff consented on March 31, 2014 to change the training teacher from D to the same training teacher on April 28, 2014, and the Defendant changed the content of the training course from D to April 20, 2014 to D for change of the entrustment contract with the Defendant on April 28, 2014 as the training teacher on the same date.

3) The training courses include NC Proging, NC/CN equipment creation, modeling, etc. as a CNC group. The training courses set forth that the training courses provide education on the training courses from June 27, 2014 to July 8, 2014. The training courses include adjoining, drawing, understanding of drawings, understanding of meritorious circuits, assembly of electrical and electronic devices, assembly of mechanical devices, assembly of distinguished voltage devices, assembly of military pressure devices, etc.

4) Upon receiving a civil petition from a trainee of the instant training course, the Defendant received a civil petition that the trainee continues to practice after the change of the training teacher. On June 2, 2014, the Defendant conducted an occasional instruction and supervision on the Development Institute, and conducted a survey on the trainee. On the CAM training course, 18 participants in the CAM training course and 16 participants in the CAM training course, among 22 participants in the CAM training course, did not comply with the training hours. In the case of the CAM training course, the Defendant instructed the trainee to remain in the instruction room and take the training room only for the trainee who takes part in the training team. In the case of the mechanical and manual assembly training course, the training instructor did not properly conduct the CAM training, but did not know about the training course without complying with the CAM training hours.

5) On June 17, 2014, H, who is a training teacher of the CAM training course, was present at the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office B branch office, Busan, and stated that “part of the trainees, at the request of the trainees, are engaged in the training course at the training room under F, and the rest of the training course using the CATSA in itself and the lecture room, and the F is in full charge of the training, but he is aware of the contents of the training course by managing the training room and the lecture room.”

6) CAM 훈련과정의 훈련생 K은 2014. 7. 9. 부산지방고용노동청 B지청에 출석하여 "훈련교사가 H으로 변경된 이후 대부분 자습을 하였는데 오전에는 수업을 진행하지 않았고 오후에는 H이 혼자서 설명 없이 도면을 그렸으며, D이 수업을 진행할 떄에는 전산응용기계제도기능사, 밀링관련 기능사 필기 이론 수업, Auto CAD 수업을 하였고 E이 수업을 진행할 때에는 CATIA 수업을 하였으며, G이 수업을 진행할 때에는 전산응용기계제도기능사 실기 수업, NC프로그래밍 등에 대한 설명 등을 하였다."고 진술하였다.

7) On June 18, 2014, J, a training teacher of the mechanical manual assembly training course, was present at the B branch office of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office, and started his/her class without preparing for the class on April 28, 2014. The three weeks thereafter, while making three-hour lectures at the mechanical manual assembly training course, some trainees were in the training room, and the remaining trainees were in the training room, and they were in the training course for the CATIA self-training in the classroom, and some of them were in full charge of the mechanical manual assembly training course, and they were in preparation for a technician examination. The same applies to the previous training instructor.

8) On July 8, 2014, the trainee L of the training course for mechanical manual assembly was present at the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office B branch office, and stated that “training instructors were under practical training for about 20 days after the change to J, and the remainder was under self-training in the lecture room, and the training instructors did not properly understand their duties, and the training instructors did not do so as a training course and did not do so.”

9) On June 24, 2014, F, an instructor of each of the instant training courses, has no qualification certificate as a regular training teacher. On June 24, 2014, F, an instructor of each of the instant training courses, present at the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office B branch, and stated that “H, after the change of a training teacher, was in charge of the practice of CAM training courses, H, while getting off the training room, does not proceed with the training course.”

10) The Plaintiff issued a disposition to demand the correction of the content of the curriculum from the Defendant on August 14, 2012 for reasons of arbitrarily changing the content of the curriculum, to terminate the contract on November 12, 2012, to restrict the entrustment of training hours and training teachers for six months, to demand the correction of the training teacher on June 19, 2013, to demand the correction of the training teacher on the ground that the training teacher was changed to an unqualified assistant teacher on June 19, 2013, to demand the correction on the ground that the training teacher was changed to an unqualified assistant teacher on July 8, 2013, to demand the correction on the ground that the request for correction was voluntarily dismissed by seven days prior to the scheduled date of change on October 29, 2013, and on December 13, 2013, to demand the correction on the ground that the training teacher was absent without permission during training hours.

11) On October 7, 2014, the Development Institute of this case was rated C by the Korea Vocational Skills Development Institute as a result of a competence assessment of vocational skills development training institutions in 2014.

[Based on the recognition] The evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, 3-1 through 5, 4-1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 8, 4-3, 4, 5-1, 2, 3, 6 through 10, 19 through 24, and 31, and the purport of the whole pleadings by the witness M.

C. Determination

1) Article 16(1) of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that "the State or a local government that intends to conduct workplace skill development training under Articles 12 through 15 may conduct workplace skill development training by concluding a commission contract with a person prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 16(2) provides that "a person who has commissioned workplace skill development training pursuant to paragraph (1) may request correction or terminate a commission contract if the commissioned person falls under any of the following subparagraphs." Article 16(7) provides that "where workplace skill development training is conducted in violation of a consignment contract," "the details of the commission contract under paragraphs (1) through (3), standards for entrustment, request for correction, termination of entrustment contract, and other matters necessary for entrusted implementation shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 13(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the request for correction of workplace skill development training under Article 16(2) and (3) of the Act, revocation of entrustment contract, specific standards for intention or gross negligence, the extent and frequency of the entrusted person's violation of training regulations, etc."

According to the relevant laws and regulations, workplace skill development training, when entrusting workplace skill development training, includes training period, training hours, organization of classes, training teachers, training places, training facilities and equipment, etc., and if the commission contract is violated to the extent that such important matters are contrary to the purpose of training, the person who entrusted workplace skill development training may terminate the contract and take measures to restrict recognition of the commission of the relevant one-year course, taking into account various circumstances.

2) Whether there is no ground for disposition

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in light of the facts recognized by the relevant laws and regulations, the Plaintiff may recognize that the commission contract was violated to the extent that it violates the purpose of training. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

A) The CAM training courses are mainly comprised of NC programming, NC/CN equipment operation, modeling, etc. Since the training course started on February 13, 2014, G was temporarily changed from D to E and changed to H from April 28, 2014, H divided trainees into two training courses, and the training courses conducted by F, an assistant teacher, for the first time training, conducted by himself/herself, using the CATIA for the remaining trainees in the lecture room. This is because the training courses were conducted from June 27, 2014 to July 8, 2014, which is different from the fixed training hours, and if the training courses were conducted by H, the training courses were conducted without any particular instruction, and the training courses were conducted by H, an assistant teacher, for the first time training, for the first time training, or for the first time training without any instruction.

B) On April 28, 2014, as training instructors were changed from I to J, the KJ opened the training course immediately after being employed in the instant Development Institute on the same day and arbitrarily divided a part of the training course into the training room, and conducted the CATA self-practice in the class. The training course is not included in the training course, and it is compared to a technician who is not in the training course after being in full charge of the training course, and then prepared an examination of the technical technician who is not in the training course.

C) The Plaintiff asserted that, in the training course, a part of the trainees did not participate in the training course at the same time, while conducting the training system, the remaining trainees managed the training course while entering the training room and the lecture room, and that the training instructor did not practice under the management of the training teacher. However, it is difficult to accept the situation that ① one training instructor was in the training room and the lecture room, ② a part of the training instructor was in the training course at the same time, ② a part of the training instructor was in the training course at the same time, and a part of the other trainees were in the training program at the same time, and there was a part of the training who did not participate in the training course at the same time, and there was no circumstance that the training course at issue was conducted for that part of the trainees who did not participate in the training course at issue, ③ in the case of the training program at issue, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the training program at issue was conducted at the time of the previous training schedule, but the Plaintiff’s argument that the training program at issue did not seem to have been clearly specified.

3) Whether the discretionary authority is deviates or abused

In accordance with the above facts, the following circumstances revealed as follows: ① a training teacher was not engaged in a school course by allowing him/her to take lessons or self-practices different from the training courses voluntarily set out in the instant training course; the organization of classes was arbitrarily divided; the training teacher violated the entrustment contract to the extent that it would violate the purpose of training; and the degree of the violation is minor; ② the Plaintiff was issued 6 times a corrective request for the reason that he/she arbitrarily changed the curriculum from the Defendant from August 14, 2012 to December 13, 2013; ② the Plaintiff was issued 6 times a disposition of restriction on the entrustment of the instant course; the termination of the contract; and six months; the Development Institute received C Grade from the Korea Institute for Vocational Skills Development in 2014; and the result of the capacity evaluation of the vocational ability development training institution for vocational ability development in 2014; and the Defendant did not deviate from or abuse discretionary authority within the scope of 1/2 of the individual standards set forth in the instant standards.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.