2012Nu4502. Revocation of administrative disposition, etc.

Korea Railroad Corporation

The head of the Central and Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

District Court Decision 2011Guhap2434 Decided January 17, 2012

September 13, 2012

September 20, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s order to return KRW 64,636,290 to the Plaintiff on March 24, 2011 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the appellate court, the defendant asserts that the provision of this case cannot be deemed null and void because it violates the delegation purpose of the mother law or the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution, such as the first instance court's decision, in light of the fact that it is practically difficult to detect illegal receipt and demand of vocational skills development training subsidies for business owners.

Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the number of business places subject to the "business owner's vocational skills development training subsidy" as of the year 2010 shall be 122,309, and the Ministry of Employment and Labor may recognize the fact that the budget for vocational skills development training subsidy for the business owner's vocational ability development training subsidy for the year 201 was 4,24.657 billion won among the budget for vocational skills development training projects in the Ministry of Employment and Labor for the year 2011, and it is difficult to detect the above act of denying the above subsidies in reality, but even if such circumstance and the defendant consider all the circumstances claimed in this court, the above argument by the court of first instance is insufficient to accept the judgment of the court of first instance as it violates the purport of the parent law or the constitutional principle of prohibition of excessive restriction.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of grounds.

The assistant judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Gangseo-gu

Judges Cho Young-soo

1) Article 56(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21015, Sep. 18, 2008)