(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.7.8. 선고 2015구합2896 판결

A. The plaintiff A is the director of the plaintiff C&A (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff C&A"), who is a lifelong education and vocational education facility on the D3th floor of Busan J&A, and the plaintiff B is the director of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the '

B. The Plaintiff’s private teaching institute received each of the above training courses from the Defendant by inviting students recognized as employees’ account combination training courses or employees’ job ability improvement training courses under the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development Act”), including “service professional instructors qualification courses, ScS Advis’s basic courses,” “CS Advis’s vocational courses,” and “counseling CS CS Advis’s vocational courses,” and conducted the above training courses. From January 7, 2013 to August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for subsidies from the Defendant to August 8, 2013, and received 81,100,000 won in total from the Defendant’s training fees (hereinafter “instant subsidies”). On June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff did not receive 100,0000 National Treasury receipts or 80 days in collusion with E employees present at the private teaching institute as if they did not receive a false training.

D. On September 30, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke four processes, to whom the entire process was entrusted and recognized (two years), to the Plaintiffs, and to impose a disposition to additionally collect an amount equivalent to the return of KRW 81,100,000 (hereinafter “additional collection disposition”).

E. Accordingly, on December 4, 2015, Plaintiff A filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing Plaintiff A’s claim on June 14, 2016.

【Fact-finding, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) Article 56(3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, which serves as the basis for the instant disposition under Chapter 1, constitutes an administrative penalty. The elements of the punishment were not provided for intentional or negligent acts, and the punishment was not provided as well, and thus, the general public with sound common sense and ordinary legal sentiment cannot predict the elements of a crime and punishment. Therefore, it is unconstitutional against the principle of clarity. Accordingly, the instant disposition based on the said provision is unlawful.

2) Although Article 56(3)1 (b) of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills in Chapter II recognizes the discretion of an administrative agency, Article 22-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, which is the basis of the instant disposition, provides that the amount equivalent to the amount of subsidies or loans received by false or other unlawful means, shall be additionally collected, thereby infringing the administrative agency’s discretionary power. The above Enforcement Rule provisions are illegal, contrary to the principle of the superior position and systematic legitimacy. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the above Enforcement Rule is unlawful.

(iii) Chapter 3;

In light of the following facts: (a) Plaintiff B led to the confession of all criminal facts at the time of investigation by the prosecution; (b) returned all illegally received amount of KRW 81,100,000; (c) the first offender who has no criminal record; (d) Plaintiff A was unaware of the act of illegal receipt; and (e) was subject to a non-prosecution disposition by the prosecution; and (e) recognized the discretion of the administrative agency regarding additional collection under Article 56(3)1 (b) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, the instant disposition

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the first proposal

The clarity doctrine is not required to the same extent in all laws, and there may be differences to the extent required by the nature of each law or each provision of the law, and may vary depending on the specificity of each constituent element and the background or circumstances in which such law was enacted (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ma500, Feb. 23, 2012; Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ba32, Aug. 28, 2014). In addition, when determining which provision of the law goes against the clarity doctrine, it shall not be determined with only one specific provision in question, but shall be determined with an organic and systematic comprehensive consideration of all relevant provisions (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 97Hun-Ba31, Nov. 26, 1998).

In the instant case, subsidies shall be granted to employers of workplace skill development training businesses to promote the promotion of workers’ employment, employment stability, improvement of social and economic status, and corporate productivity by supporting the promotion of workplace skill development training and training of technical and skilled human resources needed at industrial sites. However, considering the legislative purpose of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills and the legislative structure of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills and the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills and the Act on the Promotion of Workers’ Compensation and the Act on the Promotion of Workers’ Compensation and the Act on the Promotion of Workers’ Compensation and the Act on the Improvement of Corporate Productivity and the Act on the Improvement of Corporate Productivity and the Act on the Prevention of Additional Collection, the amount of additional collection shall be differentiated based on the amount of illegal receipt and payment, and the regulatory system that recognizes the discretion of the administrative agencies on the additional collection disposition, it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to deem that the method prescribed in Article 56(3) of the

2) Determination as to the second proposal

Article 22-2 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act is a form of Ordinance, but in light of the nature and content of the provision, it is determined by the internal rules of administrative agencies, and it does not externally bind the people or the court. Thus, the above provision is externally a national or the court.

under the premise that this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

In addition, Article 22-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule merely provides that where an administrative agency has decided to additionally collect money from a business owner, etc. pursuant to the main sentence of Article 56(3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, the amount of additional money is equivalent to the amount of money received by unlawful means, setting the specific standard, and therefore, Article 22-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule does not necessarily provide that the act of additional collection by an administrative agency is not a binding act that requires additional collection, unlike that of the administrative agency’s act of additional collection by discretionary means, unlike that of the administrative agency’s act

3) Determination as to the third proposal

In light of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire arguments, the following circumstances are revealed: (a) Plaintiff B prepared false receipts as if trainees did not pay training expenses at their own expense; or (b) obtained false statements as if trainees were temporary workers but did not appear at a private teaching institute; or (c) Plaintiff A did not know of the illegal receipt of subsidies; (b) the measure of imposing sanctions on violation of the administrative regulations is a sanction on the ground of the objective of the violation of the administrative regulations; (c) the measure of imposing sanctions against the violation of the Act can be imposed even if there were no justifiable grounds for the violation of the Act, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the duty of care, and thus, it cannot be seen that the measure of imposing sanctions against the violation of the Act was conducted for a more transparent and unfair manner than that of the Plaintiff’s violation of the Act, and thus, the measure of imposing sanctions against the Plaintiff A’s violation of the Act’s violation of the Act’s duty of care, and thus, the measure of imposing sanctions against the Plaintiff A’s violation of the Act’s violation of the Act’s duty of care.

3. Conclusion

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