(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.11.18. 선고 2016구단54162 판결

The Defendant’s order to return KRW 174,943,801 for vocational skills development training subsidies granted to the Plaintiff on May 1, 2015, a disposition to additionally collect KRW 174,943,801, and a disposition to restrict subsidies and loans for 360 days from May 1, 2015 to April 25, 2016 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a stock company established for the purpose of environmental beauty and security services, entered into an entrustment contract with eight training institutions, such as the Korea Security Association, an incorporated association, etc. from 2012 to 2014, conducted workplace skill development training for 557 employees belonging thereto, and applied for subsidies for workplace skill development training expenses for the above training courses to the Defendant, and received KRW 174,943,801 as subsidies for workplace skill development training from the Defendant from June 8, 2012 to June 3, 2014.

B. On May 1, 2015, pursuant to Articles 55 and 56 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “Act”), the Defendant issued an order to the Plaintiff to return KRW 174,943,801 vocational skills development training allowances, to additionally collect KRW 174,943,801, and to impose additional collection of KRW 360, from May 1, 2015 to April 25, 2016, on the ground that the Plaintiff received training fees from workers without having to bear training expenses and conducted vocational skills development training by receiving false application for subsidies.

C. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on January 12, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff actually conducted workplace skill development training for 557 employees, and applied for subsidies for training costs to the Defendant, and thus, cannot be deemed to have received subsidies from the Defendant to his/her employees by fraud or other improper means. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff received subsidies by fraud or other improper means is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) As between 2012 and 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract with eight training institutions, including the Korea Security Association of an incorporated association, and conducted workplace skill development training for 557 workers under its control. (2) The Plaintiff, while conducting the aforementioned workplace skill development training, received training expenses individually from workers and deposited them into the entrusted training institution in the name of the Plaintiff, and the recipient was issued a tax invoice for the training expenses from the entrusted training institution.

3) The Plaintiff, while applying for subsidies for workplace skill development training expenses for the Defendant, stated that the Plaintiff was directly paid training expenses to the entrusted training institution, and attached a tax invoice issued by the entrusted training institution.

4) The Plaintiff received KRW 174,943,801 from the Defendant as subsidies for vocational ability development training from around June 8, 2012 to June 3, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) According to the former Vocational Skills Development Act (amended by Act No. 13902, Jan. 27, 2016), the Minister of Employment and Labor may subsidize expenses incurred by workers who attend workplace skill development training courses (Article 17); and an employer who conducts workplace skill development training (including cases where workplace skill development training is conducted on commission) may subsidize expenses incurred in conducting the relevant business (Article 20(1)1). As seen above, the Vocational Skills Development Act separates workplace skill development support for workers and workplace skill development support for employers, etc. into a separate chapter.

In addition, Article 55(2)1 of the former Vocational Skills Development Act provides that the Minister of Employment and Labor may choose not to provide subsidies or loans for up to three years where a business owner who received subsidies by fraud or other improper means pursuant to Article 20 of the Act receives subsidies by fraud or other improper means. Article 56(2)1 of the former Vocational Skills Development Act provides that the Minister of Employment and Labor may order the business owner whose subsidies and loans are restricted pursuant to Article 55(2) of the Act to return the amount of subsidies and loans received by fraud or other improper means among the already provided subsidies and loans. Article 56(3)2 of the former Vocational Skills Development Act provides that where the Minister of Employment and Labor issues an order to return pursuant to Article 56(2) of the Act, he/she may additionally collect an amount equivalent to or less than the amount of subsidies and loans received by fraud or other improper means. Article 22-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Vocational Skills Development Act additionally collects the amount equivalent to the amount of subsidies and loans received by fraud or other improper means.

Article 55(2)1, Article 56(2), and Article 56(3)2 of the former Vocational Skills Development Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20350, Jun. 8, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24764, Jul. 24, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Feb. 29, 201; Presidential Decree No. 2517, Feb. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 2517, Feb. 23, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 2517, Feb. 24, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 2517, Feb. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 2517, Feb. 3, 2015>

2) The key issue in the instant case is whether the Plaintiff received subsidies for vocational ability development training by fraud or other improper means.

In light of the following circumstances, the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills separately provides for the workers' autonomous support for vocational skills development and the support for workplace skill development projects, and the requirements and details thereof, ② subsidies are granted to the Defendant pursuant to Article 20 of the Vocational Skills Development Act. The Plaintiff’s application for subsidies for workplace skill development training is also a business owner’s application for subsidies for workplace skill development training, ③ subsidies for workplace skill development training under Article 20 of the Vocational Skills Development Act are provided on the premise that the business owner would implement workplace skill development training at his/her own expense, and the employer who did not bear training expenses is not entitled to subsidies for workplace skill development training. The Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act [Attachment Form 58] states the application for subsidies for workplace skill development training and the method for raising them. According to 1-2, the Plaintiff’s application for subsidies for workplace skill development training is not a business owner’s subsidy for workplace skill development training, but a business owner who received subsidies for the Plaintiff’s training expenses directly from the entrusted training institution.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition based on the same premise is lawful (or is merely KRW 26,531,911, which the Plaintiff received subsidies by false or other unlawful means, and thus, an order of return should be issued within the extent of the above amount. However, in the event that the Plaintiff, who is not entitled to receive subsidies from the Defendant, entered false details in the application for subsidies for vocational skills development training costs, received subsidies from the Defendant, the full amount of subsidies shall be subject to an order of return to the training costs that he/she received by false or other unlawful means, and such restriction shall not be limited to the benefits actually earned by the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.