logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.06.15 2017구합65883
부정수급액반환처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The term “vocational ability development training” means training conducted for workers to acquire and improve their job skills necessary for their occupation as indicated below, as shown in B (hereinafter “B”) and C (hereinafter “C,” collectively, and as indicated in B and C, for workers belonging to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each occupational ability development training of the instant case”) at each time listed below, as indicated in the table below.

(Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers). “Remote training” means workplace skill development training in which a business owner bears training costs and entrusts his/her employed workers, employed candidates to another training institution, and the relevant training institution directly conducts training implementation, training management, etc. (Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Regulations on the Support for Workplace Skill Development of Workers). “Postal remote training” means a remote training in which training is conducted using teaching materials in a printed medium and training management, etc. is conducted

(Article 2 subparag. 11 of the Regulations on Assistance to Workplace Skill Development Training) concluded a contract with a business owner to commission and pay the cost for the entrustment.

The term "the number of taxi drivers" means the improvement of the duties of B taxi workers on November 14, 2013 through January 18, 2014, and the number of taxi drivers on May 29, 2014, "the number of 8,48,000 won from June 9, 2014 to August 8, 2014; 38,00 won on May 14, 2015; 4. The number of taxi drivers and the number of taxi drivers on June 12, 2015 to August 11, 2015; 10,000 won on May 14, 2015; 20,000 won on June 16, 2015 to August 11, 2015; 20,000 won on May 16, 201 to June 16, 2015 to June 1, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff’s most trainees (hereinafter “instant trainees”) received each of the instant workplace skill development training from D and completed the training.

arrow