2013Du21519 Revocation of recognition of workplace skill development training courses by business owners

A Stock Company

The Administrator of the Central and Central Regional Labor Office;

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu36394 Decided August 23, 2013

October 27, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 20(1) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 1037, May 31, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills") provides that "the Minister of Labor may provide subsidies or loans to a business owner who conducts workplace skill development training falling under any of the following subparagraphs." Article 24(1) provides that "a person who conducts workplace skill development training under Articles 20, 22, and 23 (including a person who conducts workplace skill development training on commission) and a person who intends to conduct workplace skill development training for which workers are eligible to receive subsidies or loans for workplace skill development training shall obtain recognition from the Minister of Labor on the process of workplace skill development training, and Article 25(1) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers provides that "the Minister of Labor may order correction or revoke recognition of training courses in any of the following cases:

"False or other fraudulent means" under Article 25 (1) 2 of the former Vocational Development Act refers to all acts that are not correct by social norms in order for a person who is not eligible to receive expenses to see as if he/she is qualified or to conceal the fact that he/she is not qualified, and "expenses" refers to expenses incurred in conducting workplace skill development projects by a business owner, etc. recognized as a vocational skills development training course and provided by the Minister of Labor according to the number of trainees, etc.

In light of the content of the relevant law and the content, form, and structure of the relevant law and the meaning and nature of the aforementioned expenses, etc., comprehensively considering the following factors: (a) where there is no doubt or gross negligence under Article 9(4) [Attachment 2] [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 12, Jul. 12, 2010) based on delegation of Article 25(6) of the former Vocational Skills Development Act; and (b) where a business owner who conducts workplace skill development projects with the recognition of the workplace skill development training course applied for subsidies differently from the fact that he/she did not receive training due to a breach of the legal or contractual obligation to manage the birth of trainees; and (c) where a business owner was unaware of the fact that he/she did not receive training, he/she should be deemed to constitute a false method, such as “an unlawful method” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da71313137.

2. The lower court determined as follows: (a) in full view of the circumstances stated in its holding, i.e., (i) whether to provide vocational ability development training costs according to the attendance of a trainee; (b) the amount of support is calculated according to the training hours; (c) the purpose of vocational ability development training is achieved; and (d) the operator of the training course is required as a fundamental obligation to manage the attendance of the trainee; (b) the Plaintiff neglected such basic obligation to manage the attendance; (c) neglected the attendance of the trainee to prepare a false attendance book; and (d) applied for the payment of training costs to the Defendant with false attendance records attached thereto; and (iii) even if the Plaintiff did not apply for training costs with false knowledge of the fact that the trainee signed the advance, signature, or proxy signing, if he paid considerable attention, he would have been able to prevent such unlawful attendance; and (d) the Plaintiff’s act of submitting false parts to the Defendant and receiving training costs based on the training course constitutes “other unlawful methods, regardless of whether the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the trainee did not receive the training course.”

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of application under Article 25(1)2 of the former Vocational Development Act

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Jo Hee-de