Cases
2017 old-gu 57458 Revocation of Recognition and revocation of Restriction of Recognition
Plaintiff
U.S. U. S. S. al.D.
Defendant
The head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office Seoul Western Site
Conclusion of Pleadings
May 24, 2017
Imposition of Judgment
June 21, 2017
Text
1. On April 6, 2017, the revocation of recognition of the 18 process, including the essential statutory curriculum for one employee, for the Plaintiff, and the revocation of the two-year entrustment and restriction on recognition of the two-year entrustment process.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Purport of claim
The same shall apply to the order.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that conducts workplace skill development training for workers after obtaining recognition of workplace skill development training courses from the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to Article 24(1) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development Act”), and the Defendant is delegated with the authority of the Minister of Employment and Labor to cancel and restrict recognition of workplace skill development training courses pursuant to Article 60 of the Vocational Skills Development Act and Article 5
B. From 2015 to 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract for workplace skill development training with A Hospital, B Hospital, or medical corporation, Chungcheong International Hospital, Chungcheong Do Medical Center, and each workplace skill development training for each employee around that time. However, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,617,00 to its employees and employees for additional services following the conclusion of each entrustment contract during the same period, and paid KRW 40,412,235 in total for the employees and employees of B Hospital, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,412,235 in the workplace skill development training for each of the instant 20-year workplace skill development training institutions and 20-year workplace skill development training training conducted by each of the instant employees and employees in accordance with the Enforcement Rules of the 20-year vocational ability development training for each of the instant 20-year workplace skill development training institutions and 40,606,60,600, and 105,000,000,000 won for each of the instant employees and employees and employees.
On April 6, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the 'full-time process', and on April 7, 2017, the instant disposition was issued to the Plaintiff, and there is no dispute between the parties that the 'full-time process' was corrected and the 'full-time process' was corrected. Thus, the instant disposition is specified as above.
[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff conducted both workplace skill development training recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor in accordance with an entrustment contract concluded with each employer and concluded with each employer, and the costs for additional services paid on behalf of each employer are only part of the profits earned under each contract provided by the Plaintiff for each employer. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act of paying costs does not constitute “the case where a person who has obtained recognition of workplace skill development training course under Article 24(2)4 of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills has received subsidies or loans for training costs by fraud or other improper means.”
Even if not, the provision of expenses under the name of additional services is at the request of each business owner.
In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case, such as the fact that the provision of expenses under the name of a supplementary service was practically conducted, and that the Plaintiff’s intentional or gross negligence cannot be deemed to exist with respect to the state of violation of legal order, the instant disposition should be deemed unlawful as the Defendant’s deviation or abuse of discretion.
B. Relevant statutes
It is as shown in the attached Form.
(c) judgment;
1) "False or other fraudulent means" under Article 24(2)4 of the Vocational Skills Development Act refers to all acts that are not correct in social norms in order for a person who is not qualified to receive training costs to see as if he/she is qualified or to conceal the fact that he/she is not qualified, and "training costs" refers to expenses that are paid to a person entrusted with vocational skills development training in return for training (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du24764, Jul. 24, 2014).
However, there is no dispute between the parties that actually conducted workplace skill development training recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor for workers belonging to each business owner in accordance with each entrustment contract that the Plaintiff concluded with each business owner. Thus, even if the Plaintiff paid expenses for each business owner on behalf of each business owner, insofar as there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff’s workplace, offline education, and overseas training for employees subject to the use of the expenses is part of workplace skill development training course that the Plaintiff originally should provide to employees belonging to each business owner, it cannot be deemed that each business owner received subsidies from the State by fraud or other improper means through the payment of expenses.
2) Article 16(4) of the Business Operator’s Vocational Training Support Regulations (Notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2017-15) provides that the aggregate of the self-paid expenses and the training expenses paid by the State to the entrusted training institution shall not exceed the training expenses that the entrusted training institution would have received at the time of the entrustment contract. Since each business owner violated the provision by putting part of the training expenses paid to the Plaintiff through the Plaintiff’s act of paying the expenses in the form of additional services, the Plaintiff’s act of paying the expenses in the form of a supplementary service is ultimately a false or any other unlawful way. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s act of paying the expenses in the form of a cost is considered as the actual vocational ability development training recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor, and it cannot be deemed that each business owner actually received part of the training expenses in the workplace or off-line education for the employees of each business owner, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that each business owner provided some of the expenses in the form of a separate service is without merit.
3) The Plaintiff’s act of providing preferential treatment to each business owner under the pretext of additional services is likely to undermine the quality of workplace skill development training. However, it seems necessary to regulate the workplace skill development training in violation of the recognized contents under Article 24(2)5 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, or to regulate the workplace skill development training in a case where it is not sufficient regulations.
D. Sub-committee
Therefore, without further examining the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant disposition is unlawful.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges
Judges Cho Sung-sung
Attached Form
A person shall be appointed.
A person shall be appointed.