(영문) 서울고등법원 2012.6.28. 선고 2011누39563 판결

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Cases

Plaintiff-Appellant

Defendant Appellant

The first instance judgment

Conclusion of Pleadings

Imposition of Judgment

Text

Purport of claim and appeal

Reasons

Judges

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2012.6.28. 선고 2011누39563 판결

직업능력개발훈련지원금환수처분취소

Cases

2011Nu39563 Revocation of Disposition of revoking vocational ability development training subsidies

Plaintiff-Appellant

A Stock Company

Defendant Appellant

The head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office Seoul East Site

The first instance judgment

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap15336 decided October 13, 2011

Conclusion of Pleadings

May 24, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

June 28, 2012

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s restriction on support for vocational ability development training expenses from February 19, 2008 to February 18, 2009 against the Plaintiff on February 16, 201 and the disposition of restitution of KRW 204,343,926 based on such disposition is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Acknowledgement of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the statement of this case is that the defendant's statement of Article 25 (3) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 9316 of Dec. 31, 2008) in the judgment of the court of first instance can be deemed to be a clerical error in light of the fact that the defendant withdraws the argument that "the support restriction measure among each of the dispositions of this case is based on Article 25 (3) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 9316 of Dec. 31, 2008) except for the corresponding parts in the judgment of the court of first instance as shown below." Thus, the part related to the above part of the judgment of the court of first instance (wholly deleted from all of the judgment of the court of first instance until 4 (2), (3), and 916 through 12 (18)) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers)."

A person shall be appointed.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.