(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.10.2. 선고 2013나300374 판결

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 41,799,200 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 6:

A. On December 22, 2009, pursuant to Article 24 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, the Plaintiff was notified of the recognition of the workplace skill development training course for the first-class six courses of the first-class six courses of care workers by the Permanent Residence Office of the Daegu Regional Labor Office under the Defendant.

B. On April 6, 2010, the above permanent branch office sent a document "related to the refund of workers' lecture subsidies (permanent employment center-D)" to the effect that the Plaintiff did not comply with the Plaintiff's report on the implementation of training and the report of the completion of training in accordance with the Ministry of Labor" on September 17, 2010.

2. The assertion and its judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) On December 22, 2009, the Plaintiff obtained recognition of training courses for Class 1 caregiver under Article 24 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers for six courses from the Daegu Regional Labor Office and applied for the payment of the employee lecture allowance to the Defendant with the documents required to be submitted by the trainees at the said caregiver education center from December 28, 2009 to April 23, 2010. However, on the ground that the Defendant would not pay the training without good cause, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above money because the Plaintiff paid the total of KRW 41,79,200 to the trainees.

2) Even if the right to claim the payment of the employee lecture allowance does not directly arise to the Plaintiff pursuant to the relevant legal provisions, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the above amount to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff was granted the power to claim the payment of the employee lecture allowance from the above trainees or was delegated with such authority.

B. Determination

1) The laws, regulations and notifications in force at the time are as follows:

Article 29 (Support for Vocational Skills Development to Workers) (1) of the Employment Insurance Act (Support for Vocational Skills Development, etc.) (1) The Minister of Labor may subsidize necessary expenses, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if the insured, etc. has received vocational skills development training or has made efforts to develop and improve their vocational skills. Article 43 (Support for Workers' Training) (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Vocational Skills Development Training") (hereinafter referred to as the "Vocational Skills Development Training") (hereinafter referred to as the "Vocational Skills Development Training") may fully or partially subsidize necessary expenses, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor, if the insured, who falls under any of the following subparagraphs, takes vocational skills development training under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act.

The Presidential Decree shall determine the workplace skill development training pursuant to Articles 43 through 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act with respect to financing and preferential support for workers under Article 18 (Support for Workplace Skill Development of Workers) and Article 21 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers. However, any person who intends to conduct workplace skill development training for which workers may receive subsidies or loans for training costs shall obtain recognition from the Minister of Labor for the workplace skill development training course. (2) Matters necessary for the scope, requirements, details, validity, etc. of recognition for workplace skill development training courses under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. (1) Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (Recognition of Workplace Skill Development Training Courses) shall meet the following requirements. The details of recognition of workplace skill development training courses under Article 24 of the Act shall be as follows:

(3) The head of an employment security office who has received an application under paragraph (1) shall confirm whether a trainee has completed the training course and the fact of the self-payment of training expenses, and shall determine whether to pay the subsidy within 10 days and notify the applicant of the result thereof.

2) The Plaintiff’s claim is premised on the Defendant’s right to claim the payment of the employee lecture allowance pursuant to the pertinent statutes, such as the Employment Insurance Act.

3) On the other hand, even if it is acknowledged that the defendant would not pay the employee lecture allowance as alleged by the plaintiff, and it is inevitable that the plaintiff paid 41,79,200 won to the trainees, the right to claim the employee lecture allowance is an individual who has completed the training course recognized by the Minister of Labor, and the plaintiff who provided the training against the workers can apply for the payment of the employee lecture allowance with the power of attorney granted from the trainees who completed the same training course at his training institution pursuant to the proviso of Article 15(1) of the Public Notice of the above Ministry of Labor (Article 209, 6515, and 15(1) of the Public Notice of the Ministry of Labor, and there is no right to directly request the payment of the employee lecture allowance (the same shall apply where the plaintiff has been granted the power to claim the employee lecture allowance from the trainees, or has been delegated the power to do so). The above argument by the plaintiff is without any justifiable reason.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is so decided, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff.