1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a business owner who operates a child-care center under the trade name, "D child-care center" in the Seocho-gu Busan Metropolitan City B apartment and C.

The Plaintiff concluded an entrustment training contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) and entrusted three childcare teachers from May 31, 2013 to September 14, 2013 with five training courses, including Tolin2-11.

The Plaintiff was compensated for KRW 4,970,932 for training expenses subsidies pursuant to Article 27 of the Employment Insurance Act by preparing a document that met the requirements for completion of entrusted training and paid subsidies to E, and submitting it to the Human Resources Development Service of Korea.

[Attachment, Article 8 of the Regulations on the Support for Workplace Skill Development Training for Business Operators (Notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor) states that “The Incheon Bupyeong Police Station shall attend at least 80% of the training hours and complete the relevant training course.” On October 16, 2014, in the course of investigating E, which is an entrusted training institution, “If 48 childcare centers including the Plaintiff did not preferentially pay training expenses, it shall prepare and issue a false commission contract and tax account statement as if the pre-paid childcare centers were paid, and if the trainees failed to attend the training course for at least 80%, they shall be paid training expenses as if they meet the completion standards even if they did not attend the training course, and shall be paid training expenses subsidies as if they meet the completion standards.”

On July 21, 2016, the vice president of the Central District Labor Agency made a request to the Defendant for an administrative disposition under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes because he/she entered into an entrustment contract with the E and sent the list of the business owners, including the Plaintiff who received a subsidy for training expenses in a fraudulent or other unlawful manner.

On September 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) Articles 55(2), 56(2), and 56(3) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers; and (b) Articles 22 and 22-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.