beta
Cases
2011Nu4296 Revocation, such as an order to refund the illegally received amount of vocational ability development training expenses.
Plaintiff-Appellant
A Stock Company
Defendant Appellant
1. The head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office;
2. The Administrator of the Central and Local Employment and Labor Office:
The first instance judgment
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap24972 Decided November 10, 2011
Conclusion of Pleadings
November 20, 2013
Imposition of Judgment
November 20, 2013
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and all of the lawsuits against this part shall be dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of claim
On May 19, 2011, the disposition to recover training costs of KRW 10,960,200 by the head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office, and the disposition to additionally collect training costs of KRW 59,038, the disposition to recover training costs of KRW 59,038, the additional collection of KRW 59,038, and the disposition to recover training costs of KRW 228,39,454 shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and that part of the Plaintiff’s claim is all dismissed (the part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of the collection of training expenses of KRW 59,038 and the additional collection of KRW 59,038, which was conducted by the Administrator of the Pyeongtaek-gu Office of Employment and Labor, among the Plaintiff’s claim, was dismissed in the first instance court but was excluded
Reasons
The fact that the head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency revokes the disposition to collect training expenses of KRW 10,960,200 on October 21, 2013 by the head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency, and the head of the Bupyeong-gu Regional Employment and Labor Agency revokes the disposition to collect training expenses of KRW 28,39,454 on October 28, 2013 by his/her authority, is not a dispute between the parties.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of this disposition is seeking the revocation of a non-existent disposition, and became unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit. The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the lawsuits corresponding thereto are dismissed
Judges
The presiding judge, senior judge and senior judge
Judges Noh Jeong-il
Judges Jeong Jae-ok