(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.7.7.선고 2016구합50901 판결

1. On February 1, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition on consignment and recognition restriction for six months to the Plaintiff on each training course of coffee and coffee safafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafaba.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for workplace skill development training with the Defendant pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter referred to as “Vocational Skills Development Act”), and conducted training courses (training period: from February 2, 2015 to February 1, 2016; hereinafter referred to as “instant problem course”) such as “working practices for the business start-up of a buria” from the Defendant.

B. B, who is a trainee of the instant process, had C, a trainee, attend the instant process instead of B’s attendance card on October 13, 2015 and October 14, 2015, 2000, against the provision on management of withdrawal from 20 months to 20 months from October 15, 2015 (except for October 19, 2015, October 27, 2015, 2015, 200: 6 times from 6 times from 200 to 6 times from 6 times from 20 days from 200: 6 times from 6 times from 200 to 26 times from 6 times from 200 to 36 times from 200 to 26 times from 26 times from 206 to 36 times from 200 to 36 times from 200.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a case where there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is legitimate or not, the gist of the parties' arguments

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Article 19(2) and (5) of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills, which is the basis for the instant disposition, and Article 6-3(2) [Attachment Table 1-2] and Article 6-3(2) [Attachment Table 5] b of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, only stipulate the cancellation of recognition and the entrustment of and recognition for the instant course for six months, where the Defendant violated the contents recognized to the extent that it would violate the purpose of training by means of false or other unlawful means, such as conducting the management of the outflow in a false or other unlawful manner, etc.

2) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The defendant judged that the process of this case and the process of this case are the same process as 70% or more of the Slar Dogs' Dogs' Dogs' Dogs' gress' gress' gress' gress' gress' gress' gress' gress' gress' gress' gress' gress' gress' gress' gress' gres

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The Constitution is one of the basic principles of the rule of law, and the rule of law is one of the core contents of the rule of law that the formal legal basis established by the National Assembly is required in administrative action (see Constitutional Court Order 2003Hun-Ma87, Mar. 31, 2005). The principle of statutory reservation does not refer only to the rule by law, but also to the rule based on law. Thus, the form of restriction on fundamental rights does not necessarily need to be the form of law, and if it meets the specification and clarity of the delegation required by Article 75 of the Constitution with the basis of the law, it can also be restricted by delegation legislation (see Constitutional Court Order 2003Hun-Ma289, Feb. 24, 2005).

In full view of the following circumstances as to the instant case’s health class, the evidence as mentioned above, and the overall purport of evidence Nos. 9, 4, and 5, the instant disposition pertaining to the instant case’s issue process is a need for legal basis since the Plaintiff’s freedom to perform his/her occupation is restricted. The instant disposition was made solely on the ground that the instant issue process and its single are similar to the instant process, and there is no legal basis. Therefore, the instant disposition made without legal basis is unlawful. ① The instant disposition made without legal basis is unlawful. ① The instant restriction on consignment and recognition has the validity of restrictions on all training courses conducted by the relevant training institution, or the restriction on commission and recognition is not imposed only on the relevant training course’s individual standards, and it is clearly distinguishable from the relevant disposition of “restricted entrustment and recognition” in the instant case’s process and the relevant restriction on recognition and recognition.

(2) The provisions of Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2] Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2] Article 6-1 (General Standard 1) and (2) (5) (B) of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act stipulate that if a person who has obtained recognition of training courses commits a violation, the revocation of recognition and the disposition of ‘restricted or Restricted Recognition' should be taken for six months as a sanction, and that the same process is not included in the sanctions.

③ The Defendant’s guidelines (Evidence No. 4) and inquiry reply (Evidence No. 5) based on the Ministry of Employment and Labor (Evidence No. 4) are merely administrative rules that the superior administrative agency established and issued to a subordinate administrative agency the business process guidelines or the criteria for interpretation and application of statutes, and thus, cannot be deemed a legal basis for the instant disposition.

(4) In the guidelines of the Ministry of Employment and Labor (No. 4), "where the items of Maglass No. 4 are similar to or more than 70%, all of them shall be judged as "the same process". However, if the sanctions can be imposed on the same process only because Maglass glass are similar, it shall be similar if it can be viewed as "the same process" as "the criteria are good, and there is a risk that the scope of sanctions may be determined by arbitrary interpretation of administrative agencies (at least 70% standards are ambiguous in comparison methods)

⑤ On November 2, 2015, prior to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant issues as a training course separate from the instant case’s one, and recognized by the Defendant (the effective period: from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016), and solely based on the materials submitted by the Defendant, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff opened and recognized the instant issues separately for the purpose of evading sanctions against the instant issues process.

⑥ 실제 이 사건 문제과정의 경우 교육내용이 '창업관련 비교분석 및 정리, 로스팅이론, 로스팅실습, 원두블렌딩, 현장실전카페응용'인데 반해, 이 사건 쟁점과정 중 '커피바 리스타빙수디저트카페' 과정은 교육내용이 '커피기계운용, 에스프레소 추출, 더치추출, 우유스티밍, 커피스팀노출관리 '이고, '커피바리스타전문가 과정은 교육내용이 '커피기계 운용, 커피기계설정, 커피그라인더운용, 핸드드립, 아이싱슈가쿠기성형하기, 카페사이드 수제 디저트만들기, 데코레이션 컵케잌 만들기'이다. 위 교육내용 및 세부 강의내용 등에 비추어 볼 때, 이 사건 문제 과정과 이 사건 쟁점과정은 훈련과정의 기본 목표와 방향에 상당한 차이가 있는 것으로 보이고, 세부강의의 단위별 훈련시간에도 차이가 있어 훈련수준에서도 구별되는 차이가 있을 것으로 보인다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.