2019Nu37365 Order and revocation of a decision of additional collection, etc.

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. F;

6. G.

7. 1

8. K;

9. L.

10. M;

Attorney Lee Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiffs

The Director General of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2017Gudan50208 Decided January 22, 2019

August 22, 2019

September 19, 2019

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant issued an order to return KRW 5,972,00 to the Plaintiff on October 14, 2016, issued an order to return KRW 5,972,00 to the Plaintiff; the order to additionally collect KRW 5,972,00 from the date of the disposition; the order to return KRW 2,364,200; the order to return KRW 2,364,200; the order to additionally collect KRW 2,364,200; the order to additionally collect KRW 330 from the date of the disposition; the order to return KRW 2,728,00; the order to return KRW 2,728,728,00; the order to additionally collect KRW 3,00 from the date of the disposition; the order to return KRW 3,00; the order to additionally collect KRW 3,00 for 30 days from the date of the disposition; the order to return KRW 2,368,208; and the order to additionally collect KRW 3036,29,208.

The order of return of KRW 3,140,50, additional collection of KRW 3,140,500, additional collection of KRW 3,140,50, and 360 from the date of the disposition, the order of return of KRW 1,34,00, the order of return of KRW 1,344,000, additional collection of KRW 1,34,000, the order of additional collection of KRW 330,000, the order of return of KRW 2,656,00 against Plaintiff L, the order of return of KRW 2,656,00, additional collection of KRW 2,656,00,000, and the restriction

The order of return of KRW 7,549,200 against the plaintiff M, the order of additional collection of KRW 7,549,200, the decision of additional collection of KRW 7,549,200, and the disposition of restriction on loans for 360 days

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following cancellation shall be revoked. On October 14, 2016, the defendant ordered the plaintiff A to return KRW 5,972,00, KRW 5,972,000, KRW 2,364,200, KRW 2,364,200, KRW additional collection of KRW 200, October 20, 2016, the order to return KRW 2,728,000, KRW 2,728,000, KRW 00, KRW 3,08, KRW 600, KRW 3,08, KRW 600, KRW 308, KRW 60, KRW 600, KRW 206, KRW 308, KRW 208, KRW 200, KRW 300, KRW 400, KRW 208, KRW 200, KRW 308, KRW 2006, KRW 304.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds for appeal filed by the plaintiffs in this court are not significantly different from the contents claimed by the plaintiffs in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are reviewed together with the allegations by the plaintiffs, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The reasons for this decision are as follows, except for partial dismissal or addition, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance court. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ The written judgment of the first instance court No. 4, No. 13, and No. 14, "Plaintiff E" are advanced as "E".

○ In the first instance court judgment No. 4, the "Plaintiff J" in the 19th instance court judgment is regarded as the "J".

The judgment of the court of first instance, on the 4th and 6th of the 4th and the 3th of the 6th of the 6th, "Plaintiff H" is respectively raised as "H".

○ On the 7th page of the judgment document of the first instance court, the "this court" in the second sentence shall be deemed to be the "Incheon District Court".

Part 19 to 10 of the written judgment of the first instance court is as follows. Part 9 to 10 of the written judgment of the first instance court is written in the following box.

C) Although the Defendant asserts the legality of the disposition of an appeal suit has the burden of proof, if there is a reasonable and acceptable proof of the legitimacy of a certain disposition, the disposition is justifiable, and any assertion and proof contrary thereto return to the Plaintiff, the other party, the Plaintiff. (See, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du27639, Jun. 18, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2015Du42817, Oct. 27, 2016). The training course in which the Plaintiffs’ infant care teachers participated is composed of 13 hours per day, 14 hours per day, 12 hours per day, 10 hours per ten days, 40 hours per day, and 10 hours per day, and 10 minutes per day per day, and 20% of the training hours per day per day per day per day per day per day, the Plaintiffs were subject to the instruction from 20% of the Plaintiff’s total training hours per day to 10% of the training hours per day per day.

However, the plaintiffs' infant care teachers argued to the effect that they received more than 80% of the daily training hours by completing individually the practical training remaining in the lecture room even after the passage of the lecture hours. However, each description or image of Gap evidence 16 (including the paper number) is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' above-mentioned facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

Part 4 to 11 of the written judgment of the first instance court is as shown in the following box.

Article 55 and Article 56 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers refers to affirmative and passive acts that may affect the decision-making on the payment of training costs by a person who is not eligible to receive training costs as if he/she were qualified or who is not eligible to receive such training costs (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du24764, Jul. 7, 2014). In addition, inasmuch as sanctions against administrative violations are imposed on a person who is stipulated as a legal manager, not a real offender, and even if he/she was intentional or negligent, barring any special circumstance, it may be imposed on him/her even if he/she did not have any intention or negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1297, May 10, 2012). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, in light of the health class and the above legal principles, the Plaintiffs are unable to properly file a claim for training costs, as seen earlier, even if they were unable to complete the training courses, as seen earlier.

훈련생들의 수료 여부, 훈련비용 지원신청의 적정성 여부를 확인하지 아니하고, 훈련| 비를 AV에 선납하지 않은 경우 허위의 세금계산서를 발행받아 첨부하는 등의 방식으로 훈련비용 지원신청을 하였는바, 이는 훈련비용을 지급받을 자격이 없는 사람이 자격이 있는 것처럼 꾸미거나 자격 없는 사실을 감춰준 것으로 사회통념상 옳지 못한행위에 해당하고, 이러한 경우에도 원고들의 고의를 요구한다면 제재규정의 실효성을확보하기 어렵다. 따라서 비록 원고들이 수사기관에서 혐의없음 처분을 받았거나 수사기관에 별도로 입건되지 않았고, AV의 대표자 등 관련자들이 사기죄의 간접정범으로처벌받은 사정 등을 감안하더라도, 원고들이 거짓이나 그 밖의 부정한 방법으로 훈련비용을 지원받았다고 판단되므로, 근로자직업능력 개발법 제56조 제2항 제1호, 제3항에 따라 반환명령과 추가징수처분을 할 수 있다고 봄이 상당하다.

The first instance court's judgment Nos. 20 to 12, 11, 20 and 5 are as follows.

앞서 든 증거에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 보면, 인천부평경찰서장은 2014. 10.17.경 피고에게 'AV 등에 대하여 수사를 한바, 어린이집 원장들과 교육원 원장들이 훈|련비를 받지 않았음에도 받은 것처럼 허위 계산서를 작성하고, 보육교사가 80% 이상 훈련을 이수하지 않았음에도 모두 받은 것처럼 하여 국고보조금을 부정수급하였다'는 취지의 행정처분 대상자 통보를 한 사실, 이후 검사가 2014. 11. 17. AV의 대표자 등 관련자들을 사기 등 혐의로 기소하였으나, 원고들은 혐의없음 처분을 받거나 수사기관에입건되지 아니한 사실, 한편 고용노동부는 2016. 4, 12. 인천부평경찰서의 사업주 훈련

In relation to the investigation results of non-demanding, it is recognized that the administrative agency including the defendant (including the defendant) sent a guide including the guidelines for the administrative disposition of non-business owners' illegal training (hereinafter referred to as "the guidelines of this case") that contain the following contents, and that the plaintiffs did not present any opinion even though they received official reports prior to the disposition of the non-demanding training costs, written requests for submission of documents, etc. from the defendant.According to the above facts of recognition, the guidelines of this case are the superior agency of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and the criteria for exercising discretion on general handling of cases

을 마련한 재량준칙으로 볼 수 없다. 더구나 이 사건 기준은 검찰의 불기소 사유를 확인하여 사업주의 불법행위가 확인되지 않는 경우에 행정처분 대상에서 제외하라는 취|지일 뿐, 수사자료 등을 통하여 부정수급이 확인되는 경우까지도 행정처분 대상에서 제외하라는 의미로 볼 수 없는바, 피고는 이 사건 기준에 따라 수사기관으로부터 전달받은 자료들을 근거로 원고들에게 서면조사서 및 확인서를 보내 의견을 밝힐 기회를 부여하는 등 객관적인 자료와 절차에 따라 원고들에게 이 사건 각 처분을 하였으므로, 이사건 처분이 이 사건 기준을 위반하였다고도 볼 수 없다. 따라서 원고들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims, except for the part of the defendant's respective support and the part of the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of the loan restriction disposition, shall be dismissed in its entirety, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as

The presiding judge, the whole judge;

Judges Min Il-young

Judge Lee Jin-hun