[1] In a case where the pertinent restriction disposition is deemed illegal in the litigation procedure against a restriction on recognition of the workplace skill development training course, and it is confirmed that the relevant restriction disposition is invalid as a matter of course, whether a business owner shall be given an opportunity to apply for recognition of training courses and to apply for support for training expenses, which were not within the period prescribed by the relevant statutes (

[2] In a case where a business owner’s restriction on recognition of vocational ability development training course and a restriction on training costs are deemed to be unlawful in the litigation procedure or where a business owner applies for ex post facto support for the expenses of vocational ability development training course that was actually conducted during the recognition limitation period, whether the competent authority may deny the payment of training costs solely on the formal basis that the business owner did not obtain prior recognition of training courses (negative); and in this case, the competent authority’s measures to be taken

[1] Where a business owner who has obtained recognition of workplace skill development training courses has received subsidies for training costs by fraud or other improper means, the recognition of the relevant training courses may be revoked, and with respect to a business owner whose recognition has been revoked, the recognition of the workplace skill development training courses under Article 24(1) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 11272, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development Act”) may not be granted within five years from the date of revocation of recognition, and the workplace skill development training expenses may not be subsidized for one year (Article 24(2)2 and (3), and Article 5(2)1 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 22 [Attachment Table 6-2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, Mar. 11, 2011).

If a business owner who has obtained recognition of workplace skill development training courses by fraud or other improper means and the competent authority determined that training expenses were subsidized in accordance with the above provisions, and determined that the restriction on recognition of training courses for a certain period and the restriction on subsidization of training expenses, the business owner cannot file an application for recognition of training courses that are scheduled to be conducted during the relevant restriction period due to the restriction, and it is impossible for the competent authority to file an application for subsidization of expenses for the already-established training courses (It is apparent that the competent authority refuses to accept recognition of training courses or subsidization of training expenses on the ground

However, in cases where the relevant restrictive disposition is deemed illegal and revoked or it is confirmed that the relevant restrictive disposition is void as a matter of course, exceptionally, providing an employer an opportunity to apply for recognition of training courses and to apply for support for training expenses not within the period prescribed by the relevant statutes due to the relevant restrictive disposition, in conformity with the legislative purport of Articles 30(1) and (2) and 38(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, which provide the binding force of the judgment revocation and the judgment nullification, and the principle of administration by the rule of law.

[2] Even though the competent authority imposed restrictions on recognition of the training course in a timely manner to prevent an employer from applying for recognition of the training course, in cases where an employer filed an application for subsidization of expenses for training conducted within the period for which recognition is limited, the competent authority should not reject the payment of training expenses on the sole ground that the relevant training course was not recognized in advance. Such rejection is nothing more than the ground that an administrative agency made the business owner’s failure to apply for recognition of the training course in advance to the business owner, which caused the failure of the business owner to apply for recognition of the training course, by imposing restrictions on recognition of the training course. Thus, it cannot be permitted against the principle of trust and good faith, on the ground that the administrative agency, which caused the business owner’s failure to apply for the pre

Therefore, where a business owner’s restriction on recognition of training courses and a restriction on subsidization of training expenses are deemed to be illegal in the litigation procedure or where a business owner makes an ex post facto application for subsidies for the expenses of vocational skills development training courses that were actually conducted during the period of restriction on recognition, the competent authority shall not refuse to grant subsidies for training expenses only for the formal reason that the business owner did not have obtained recognition of training courses for the relevant training course. The competent authority should determine whether the workplace skill development training course actually conducted during the period of restriction on recognition satisfies the substantive requirements for recognition of training courses under Article 22(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23467, Dec. 30, 201); whether each trainee satisfies all the substantive requirements for recognition of training courses under Article 22(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2011-73, Dec. 30, 2011).

[1] Articles 24(1), 24(2)2 and (3), and 55(2)1 of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (Amended by Act No. 11272, Feb. 1, 201); Article 22 [Attachment 6-2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 20, Mar. 11, 201); Articles 30(1) and (2), and 38(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 24(1), (2)2, and (3), and 55(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (Amended by Act No. 11272, Feb. 1, 2012); Article 24(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2151, Dec. 19, 2011>

Korea Land Information Corporation

The Administrator of the Gyeonggi Local Labor Agency;

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu40957 decided August 30, 2016

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1.(a) A. (1) Subsidization of the costs of workplace skill development training conducted by employers shall be conducted through a series of procedures:

(1) If an employer intends to obtain subsidies from the Minister of Employment and Labor for expenses incurred in workplace skill development training for his/her employees, he/she shall submit an application for recognition of workplace skill development training courses to the head of the competent local employment and labor office by satisfying all the requirements prescribed in Article 22(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23467, Dec. 30, 201; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Skills Development Act”) at least seven days before or five days before the relevant training courses commence [Article 24(1) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 11272, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development Act”), Article 22(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 8(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Workplace Skills Development Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act”).

(2) Where the head of the competent local employment and labor office deems that an application for recognition is reasonable, he/she shall notify the applicant of the result thereof by using a notice of recognition of workplace skill development training courses under attached Form 3 (Article 8 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Workplace Skill Development Act).

(3) A business owner who has obtained recognition of training courses shall report to the head of the competent local employment and labor office on the implementation of training by the beginning date of training (Provided, That where the training period is at least 30 days, within 7 days after the commencement of training), and report the completion of training within 14 days from the completion date of training (Provided, That Article 7 (1) of the former Regulations on Assistance to Workplace Skill Development Training for a business owner (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2011-73, Dec. 30, 201; hereinafter “Support Regulations”).

(4) Upon receipt of a report on a trainee of training, the head of the competent local employment and labor office shall examine whether each trainee reported at the time of filing a report on the completion of training meets the standards for completing subsidies prescribed in Article 8 (1) of the Support Regulations [Article 27 of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201; hereinafter “Employment Insurance Act”); Article 41 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23139, Sept. 15, 201; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act”); Article 60 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 32, Sept. 16, 201; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act”); Article 8 (1) of the Support Regulations]

(5) A business owner shall submit an application for subsidization of training expenses to the head of the competent local employment and labor office within 30 days after completion of training courses or after conducting training for each three-month period (Article 60 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act).

(6) The head of the competent local employment and labor office shall determine whether to grant subsidies by examining business owners' applications for subsidies for training expenses and notify the result thereof by using a notice of decision on the payment of training expenses under the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (attached Form 59) (Article 60(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act). Subsidies for training expenses shall be calculated in proportion to the number of persons who completed

(2) Such recognition of workplace skill development training courses has the meaning to confirm in advance that the head of the competent local employment and labor office (hereinafter “competent office”) satisfies the requirements prescribed in Article 22(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Skills Development Act and is entitled to receive training expenses from the Employment Insurance Fund. Furthermore, recognition of workplace skill development training courses is a procedural requirement that a business owner is obliged to obtain support for workplace skill development training expenses from the Employment Insurance Fund, since it is granted to a business owner who has obtained recognition of training courses.

B. Meanwhile, in cases where a business owner who has obtained recognition of vocational skills development training courses has received subsidies for training costs by fraud or other improper means, the recognition of the relevant training courses may be revoked, and with respect to a business owner whose recognition is revoked, the recognition of the vocational skills development training courses under Article 24(1) of the Vocational Skills Development Act may not be granted within five years from the date of revocation of recognition, and the workplace skill development training expenses may not be subsidized for one year (Articles 24(2)2 and (3) and 55(2)1 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 22 [Attachment Table 6-2] of the Enforcement Rule thereof.

If a business owner who has obtained recognition of the workplace skill development training course by fraud or other improper means and the competent authority determined that training expenses were to be subsidized in accordance with the above provisions, and determined that the restriction on recognition of training courses and the restriction on subsidization of training expenses, the business owner cannot apply for recognition of training courses that are scheduled to be conducted during the relevant restriction period due to the restriction, and the business owner is unable to apply for subsidization of expenses for training courses that have already been conducted (it is apparent that the competent authority refuses to accept recognition of training courses or subsidization of training expenses on the ground that the restriction disposition exists).

However, in cases where the relevant restrictive disposition is deemed illegal and revoked or it is confirmed that the relevant restrictive disposition is void as a matter of course due to the relevant restrictive disposition, exceptionally giving an employer an opportunity to apply for recognition of training courses and to apply for support for training expenses, which were not within the period prescribed by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, accords with the legislative purport of Articles 30(1) and (2) and 38(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, which provide the binding force of the judgment revocation and the judgment nullification, and the principle of administration by law.

Furthermore, even though the competent authority imposed a restriction on recognition of training courses against an illegal disposition to prevent an employer from applying for recognition of training courses, in cases where an employer filed an application for subsidization of expenses for training conducted within the period for which recognition is limited after the judgment on revocation of the restriction on recognition becomes final and conclusive, the competent authority should not reject the subsidization of training expenses solely on the ground that the employer did not obtain prior recognition of training courses on the relevant training courses. Such rejection is nothing more than the ground that an administrative agency, which made the business owner impossible to apply for the recognition of training courses on the ground that the business owner did not obtain prior recognition of training courses by imposing a restriction on recognition of training courses, would have caused the failure to apply for the recognition of training courses on the business owner who made the ground that the business owner was unable to

Therefore, where a business owner makes an ex post facto application for subsidies for the expenses of workplace skill development training courses that were actually conducted during the litigation procedure after the restriction on recognition of training courses and the restriction on subsidization of training costs is deemed illegal or it is confirmed that they were null and void, the competent authority shall not refuse to grant subsidies for training expenses only for the formal reasons that the business owner did not have obtained recognition of training courses for the relevant training course. The competent authority shall determine whether to grant subsidies and the amount of subsidies for training costs after examining whether the workplace skill development training course actually conducted during the restriction period meets the substantive requirements for recognition of training courses under Article 22(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Skills Development Act, and whether each trainee has completed the training course under Article 8(1) of the Support Regulations. Furthermore, the competent authority must request the business owner to supplement the application for ex post facto training expenses within a reasonable period (Article 17(5) of the Administrative Procedures Act).

2. Review of the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court reveals the following circumstances.

A. On June 4, 2015, the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) comprehensively succeeded to all the status of the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”), regardless of whether before or after the date, obtained recognition of the training course under Article 24(1) of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills (hereinafter “instant training course”) from the Defendant regarding the spatial information system (GIS), and conducted the instant training course from June 22, 2009 to June 26, 2009.

B. Although the Plaintiff must report the completion of the training course before and after the implementation of the training course, the Plaintiff failed to report the completion of the training course and the completion of the training. As the Plaintiff’s negligence failed to report the completion of the training course at the time, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant on November 9, 2009, as if the training course was conducted from November 9, 2009 to November 13, 2009, and reported the completion of the training course on November 16, 2009. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the support of the training course at issue, and the Defendant supported the Plaintiff with KRW 4,753,700 for the training course at issue.

C. After that, on the grounds that the Plaintiff filed a false report on the implementation period of the instant training course and filed a false report on the completion of the training course and received training expenses, the Defendant rendered a disposition on January 12, 201 to impose sanctions on the Plaintiff for the restriction on recognition of the entire training course pursuant to Article 24(2)2 and (3) and Article 55(2)1 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, and Article 22 [Attachment 6-2] of the Enforcement Rule thereof (hereinafter “instant restriction on recognition”) for three months (from January 12, 2011 to April 11, 201), and for one year (from January 12, 2011 to January 11, 2012) from the date of the disposition.

D. On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the instant recognition restriction disposition, etc. (hereinafter “prior action”), and on which April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff actually conducted training courses as recognized by the Defendant, and even if there was a violation of the provision on training reporting, it was sentenced to the revocation of the instant recognition restriction disposition, etc. on the ground that it does not constitute “the case of receiving training fees by fraud or other improper means,” which is a ground for sanctions under Articles 24(2)2 and 55(2)1 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, which is a ground for sanctions under Article 24(2)2 and 55(2)1 of the

E. Accordingly, on June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the payment of KRW 490,313,695 of the total training expenses that was actually paid during the period of the restriction on the payment of training expenses (from January 12, 2011 to January 11, 2012) on the grounds that the instant restriction on recognition was revoked in accordance with the final judgment of the preceding lawsuit. The Defendant rejected payment of KRW 124,458,308 of the training course conducted during the period of restriction under the instant restriction on recognition (from January 12, 2011 to April 11, 201) on July 14, 2015 (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

3. We examine the above circumstances in light of the relevant statutes and legal principles as seen earlier.

A. In the preceding lawsuit, the judgment revoking the instant restriction on recognition and the restriction on subsidization of training costs against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, and the Defendant must provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to apply for recognition of training courses and to apply for support of training costs that the Plaintiff did not have within the deadline prescribed by relevant statutes.

B. The Defendant was illegal to impose restrictions on recognition of the instant training course, and accordingly, the Plaintiff was unable to timely undergo a series of procedures, including applying for recognition of the subsequent training course. Accordingly, the Defendant, which created obstacles to applying for recognition of the training course, did not file an application for support for training expenses after a final and conclusive judgment on revocation of the instant restrictions on recognition, on the grounds that the Defendant did not file an application for training courses in advance regarding the relevant training course, and accordingly, rejected training expenses on the sole ground that the Plaintiff did not receive the recognition of training course.

C. Therefore, the Defendant shall not refuse to grant training costs solely on the ground that he/she did not obtain prior recognition of training courses, and shall examine whether the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for recognition of training courses and support of training costs in relation to workplace skill development training conducted during the instant recognition limitation period, and determine whether to grant training costs and the amount of support.

4. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise, that the instant rejection disposition was lawful on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for training expenses, inasmuch as the Plaintiff was able to apply for the recognition of training courses upon receiving a stay of execution as to the instant recognition restriction disposition, even though the instant recognition restriction disposition was unlawful. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of the revocation judgment, the good faith, and the principle of administration by the rule of law, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit.

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)