(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.11.13. 선고 2014구합11212 판결

On May 1, 2014, the defendant revoked the return of employer training expenses subsidies, additional collection, and restriction on loans due to violation of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) Vicarious education and receipt of subsidies for workplace skill development training;

The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the vicarious education of occupational ability development training courses under the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Development of Vocational Skills of Workers"), which is a commissioned educational company, with the new education center company (hereinafter referred to as the "training institution in this case"), and had its employees undergo training on the training courses indicated in the following table from March 15, 2012 to August 14, 2012, and received from the Defendant the total amount of KRW 4,721,920 as stated in the following table of subsidies.

The current status of the supply and demand of the plaintiff

A person shall be appointed.

B. On May 29, 2014 and May 25, 2012, the Governor of the Provincial Police Agency of Jeollabuk-do notified the head of the Jeju Provincial Police Agency of the investigation results of the Provincial Police Agency of the fact that “the head of the Jeju Provincial Police Agency of the fact that the instant training institution was conducted from January 14, 2012 to August 25, 2012, by developing automatic learning program (defacing) and automatically proceeding the process necessary for completing the test and evaluation, in collusion with the business members, by acquiring government subsidies through fraudulent completion necessary for refund, and sending them as prosecution opinions to the previous Jeju District Public Prosecutor’s Office.

On May 15, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff received training expenses from a false completion who failed to meet the standards for completing the use of the altered program, on the ground that the Plaintiff entrusted the Internet distance training to the instant training institution from March 15, 2012 to August 14, 2012. As such, pursuant to Articles 55(2)1 and 56(2) and 56(3)2 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff received training expenses from a false completion who failed to meet the standards for completing the use of the altered program (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

Details of violation.

In accordance with Article 8(1)2(b) of the Regulations on the Support for Workplace Skill Development Training for a business owner, the rate of study performance shall be at least 80/100; however, the Plaintiff, even though the actual rate of the training of his/her employees is less than 80/100, the Plaintiff shall claim training fees for trainees who completed false training by manipulating the program for alteration of the course of study, and shall unlawfully receive training costs of KRW 4,721,920.

On the other hand, the grounds for the above restriction on financing are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 5 and 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant statutes

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Defendant issued the instant disposition while the Plaintiff received training costs illegally, the Plaintiff did not have publicly recruited the training institution and the training fee in advance. ② The instant disposition was unlawful since the Plaintiff was found to constitute a victim due to the instant training institution’s criminal act, and the Defendant was erroneous in failing to supervise the instant training institution even though it was authorized to supervise the entrusted educational institution’s lawful operation of training courses in accordance with the relevant laws.

B. Relevant legislation

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts as seen earlier, the evidence, and evidence No. 7’s statement, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s subsidization of training costs constitutes a case where the Plaintiff received training costs by false or other unlawful means.

1) The instant training institution: (a) did not have a trainee who met the completion conditions for the payment of subsidies as shown in the attached Table 1 because the actual rate of the Plaintiff’s employees’ training institution was merely 0-15.26% as shown in the attached Table 1; (b) was treated as having operated the Jindo rate using the alteration program and completed it falsely as if the Plaintiff met the completion standards; and (c) the Plaintiff was paid training expenses with the list of the

2) According to Article 8(1)2(b) of the Regulations on the Support for Workplace Skill Development Training for a business owner, in the case of workplace skill development training conducted by means of Internet remote training, the number of trainees’ academic achievement is more than 80% and falls under one of the completion standards for receiving training costs. In the case of Plaintiff employees, the rate of academic achievement falls short of 80%, and thus, the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for receiving training costs.

3) The content of Article 5(2)1 and Article 56(2) and (3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act and Article 22 [Attachment Table 6-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act, which provides for the period of a measure that may be imposed in cases where subsidies were granted by fraudulent or other illegal means pursuant to delegation of Article 5(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, provides for the period of a measure that may be imposed in cases where subsidies were granted by means of fraudulent or other illegal means, shall be considered as grounds for mitigation in cases where subsidies were granted by intention or gross negligence in determining the period of restriction on subsidies. In full view of the content, form, and system of the relevant statutes, and the meaning and nature of subsidies for training expenses, where the Plaintiff applied for subsidies for training expenses differently from the fact that the Plaintiff met the completion standards, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have received subsidies for training expenses that were not actually paid, even if having known that the Plaintiff failed to meet the completion standards by entrusting vocational skills development training to the instant training institution, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 715Du1313.

4) Vocational skills development support for a business owner is a system that provides a business owner with part of the expenses borne by the business owner when the business owner directly or by entrusting training courses required for jobs to a training institution to improve the job performance of his/her employees and strengthen the corporate competitiveness. Therefore, insofar as the Plaintiff applied for subsidization of expenses in accordance with the workplace skill development support system for the business owner and received subsidies for training expenses, it shall be deemed that he/she has

5) The obligation to determine whether to apply for subsidies for training costs and to verify false data at the time of submitting an application is the primary issue that is separate from whether the instant disposition is legitimate, and whether the Defendant neglected to verify the obligation to prevent unlawful receipt of training costs.

B. The above circumstances and ① in light of the legislative intent of the workplace skill development system and the remote training system, the pertinent business owner’s proper management is essential; ② the act of receiving training fees by unlawful means constitutes a serious violation that makes the purpose of the workplace skill development system itself clear, and training expenses are paid out of the Employment Insurance Fund created by the national budget and the employment insurance fund created by the employment insurance premium, etc., and the damages therefrom would be returned to workers. Therefore, in light of the fact that there is a need to strictly punish and dispose of such illegal receipt; ③ the Defendant issued the instant disposition within the criteria for disposition prescribed by the workplace skill development Acts and subordinate statutes, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant abused or abused its discretionary power in rendering the instant disposition.

C. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

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