1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification and addition as to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. Parts to be corrected and added; and

가. 이 사건 인정취소 처분 적법 여부 판단 부분 제1심판결문 제8면 제12행부터 제20행까지 부분을 아래와 같이 수정 『⑴ 직업능력개발법 제19조 제2항 제1호 사유의 존부 을 제8, 20, 22, 45호증(가지번호 있는 것은 가지번호 포함 의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 모아보면, 원고는 2013. 6. 20 피고에게 ‘U’을 훈련과정으로 인정하여 줄 것을 신청하였으나, 피고가 2013. 7. 1. 이에 관하여 과정 인정 처리지연 통보를 한 데 이어 2013. 9. 17. 이를 반려한 사실, 원고는 위 처리지연 통보 이후인 2013. 7. 13. 및 2013. 8. 24. 제7번 훈련과정을, 2013. 9. 9. 제8번 훈련과정을 직업능력개발훈련과정으로 인정받은 후 실제로는 임상심리사 자격시험 교육을 실시하는 ‘U’을 운영한 사실이 인정된다.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, even though operating the “U” curriculum, shall be deemed to fall under the case where the Defendant deceivings the Defendant for the training courses No. 7 and No. 8 in a false or other unlawful manner, and thus, the Plaintiff’s disposition under Article 19(2)1 of the Vocational Skills Development Act exists.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

The remainder of the training courses is health, and even in each of the above training courses, the training courses presented by the plaintiff through the application for recognition to the defendant in order to be recognized as the occupational ability development training course.