beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and the Plaintiff’s employees to entrust workplace skill development training (hereinafter “vocational training”) to D by means of postal remote training and pay the price therefor, regardless of whether the trade name was changed to C around July 2015; hereinafter “mutual change”).
The name of a training course: The number of trainees from October 13, 2014 to December 12, 2014: 6,664,00 won (56,00 won per capita) for the total training expenses for 119 persons: 1,00 won.
B. On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that 105 trainees, who are the workers of the Plaintiff, received vocational training from D and met the completion standards, and applied for the payment of vocational training costs (hereinafter “subsidies”) to the Seoul Southern Vice-Governor of Human Resources Development Service of Korea (hereinafter “Support”) 5,880,000 won per capita x 105 persons.
Accordingly, on January 12, 2015, the Human Resources Development Service of Korea paid subsidies of KRW 5,880,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff transferred this to D on January 14, 2015.
C. On September 1, 2017, the Defendant issued 360 days (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”), based on Article 56(2) and (3) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers; Article 22-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers; Article 55(2) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers; Article 22 and [Attachment Table 6-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers; Article 22 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers; Article 2-2 of the attached Table 6-2 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s trainees who were employed by the Plaintiff were not able to meet the requirements for completion by fraudulent or other unlawful means, on the ground that the employer was unlawfully provided with training expenses.
【Ground of recognition】 There is no dispute.