Korea Land Information Corporation (Attorney Seo-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Administrator of the Gyeonggi Local Labor Agency;

August 16, 2016

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Gudan33091 Decided March 23, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition on July 14, 2015, which rendered against the Plaintiff, is revoked.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the court's reasoning for this case is that the "paragraph (5)" of the second 16th judgment of the court of first instance is "paragraph (3)", "Article 20 (1)" of the fifth 7st judgment is "Article 20 (1)", "the training course" of the sixth 4th , "the training course" is dismissed "the training course", "the business owner" of the fifth 7th 7th and "the training course" is added to "the training course" of the fifth 14th 7th 7th , and "the course" is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes again in the court of first 2nd 7th 14th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 20

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that all workplace skill development training courses conducted by the Corporation from January 12, 2011 to April 11, 2011 were conducted by the Corporation but did not apply for the recognition of the training course. However, the Defendant’s failure to apply for the recognition as above is based on the first disposition that the Corporation does not recognize all the training courses conducted by the Corporation for the said three-month period. As long as the first disposition was revoked by the final judgment of this case, the training course is recognized regardless of whether the Corporation applied for the recognition of the training course. As long as the first disposition was revoked by the final judgment of this case, the suspension of the execution of the first disposition is merely a means to prevent the benefit of the lawsuit after the lapse of the period, and thus, it cannot be attributed to the Corporation that did not apply for the suspension of the execution of the training course even if the Corporation did not apply for the first disposition.

B. Determination

In light of the relevant provisions of occupational development training laws, etc., if a business owner intends to receive subsidies from the Minister of Employment and Labor for occupational ability development training, it appears to be an essential procedure to obtain recognition of occupational ability development training courses prior to the first stage of training. The occupational development laws and regulations stipulate that the recognition of training courses shall be provided on the condition that the relevant training courses should be met in order to promote and support the occupational ability development of workers, train technical and skilled human resources needed in industrial sites, improve the social and economic status of workers, improve the productivity of enterprises, and contribute to the development of society and economy. However, if a business owner voluntarily provides training programs without undergoing the above recognition procedures, it is likely that the workplace skill development training program support system for the business owner would be mitigated. Even if a first disposition is revoked by the final judgment of this case, it cannot be deemed that the training courses cannot be deemed to have been conducted voluntarily by the Corporation without being subject to recognition procedures under the occupational development training laws and regulations until the date on which an application for recognition of the training courses cannot be deemed to have been completed.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Landscaping (Presiding Judge)