2012 Gohap5603 Revocation of recognition of workplace skill development training courses, etc.

A Stock Company

The Administrator of the Central and Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

October 18, 2012

November 1, 2012

1. The Defendant’s respective dispositions in the separate sheet of Disposition No. 1 against the Plaintiff are revoked. 2. Costs of lawsuit are borne by the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be admitted, either to a dispute between the parties, or to the entries in Gap evidence 1 (including each number), 2 (the same as Eul evidence 6), and Eul evidence 1 to 5, 7, by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. Upon recognition of vocational skills development training courses from the Defendant, the Plaintiff conducted each of the occupational ability development training courses (hereinafter referred to as “each of the training courses of this case”) as follows for its employees from November 21, 2007 to April 18, 2009.

1)

A person shall be appointed.

B. After implementing each of the instant training courses, the Plaintiff applied for training expenses for vocational skills development to the head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency. On August 2010 and September 2010, the Board of Audit and Inspection and the Ministry of Employment and Labor verified that part of the trainees of each of the instant training courses were unfairly provided for training expenses as follows: (a) as a result of the investigation into whether or not they were subject to the management of illegal entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea during the vocational skills development training period; and (b) as a result, the Plaintiff took part of the trainees of each of the instant training courses after signing them in the attendance book or attending the training course by means of proxy signature, etc.

[Attachment 2]

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

D. Based on the above findings of the investigation, the defendant made a disposition to revoke recognition of each of the training courses of this case (hereinafter referred to as "each of the dispositions of this case") and a disposition to restrict recognition for three months (hereinafter referred to as "disposition to limit recognition of this case") against the plaintiff, as shown in the attached disposition No. 25 (1) 2 and 2 of the former Act on the Development of Workers' Vocational Skills (amended by Act No. 9792 of Oct. 9, 2009 and enforced January 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act on the Development of Vocational Skills").

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received training expenses equivalent to KRW 2,230,00 for trainees who did not actually attend each of the instant training courses, but this was merely attributable to the Plaintiff’s negligence that failed to thoroughly manage the participation of some trainees, and the Plaintiff did not receive subsidies for expenses due to “the Plaintiff’s false or other unlawful means, such as making an application for the payment of training expenses, etc. with the Plaintiff’s appearance in a false body or with the knowledge of such fact,” and thus, each of the instant revocation dispositions is unlawful on the grounds that there were no grounds for the revocation of recognition, and so long as the revocation of recognition is unlawful, each of the instant revocation dispositions on the premise that it is legitimate and valid.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Sanction against a violation of administrative regulations is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of administrative regulations in order to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, barring any special circumstance, such as where there is any justifiable reason not to cause any negligence on the duty of the violator, it may be imposed by intention or negligence on the violator (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003). However, if the relevant administrative disposition-based statute provides not only the objective result of the violation of administrative regulations in relation to the subject matter of sanctions but also the special form of, or method of, such a violation of administrative regulations as a requirement for the relevant administrative disposition, if the relevant administrative disposition-based act provides not only the objective result of the violation of the administrative regulations, but also the objective result of the violation of the administrative regulations, in order to establish the grounds for the administrative disposition, it should be acknowledged that the form of, or method of, such act was mobilized or accompanied by

In light of such legal principles, Article 25 (1) 2 of the former Vocational Training Act provides that if a person who has obtained the recognition of vocational ability development training courses obtains or intends to obtain subsidies or loans by fraudulent or other illegal means, the recognition of the relevant training courses shall be revoked. This does not include all cases where a person who has obtained the recognition of vocational ability development training courses receives or intends to receive subsidies based on the objective facts different from the objective facts, but is subject to the disciplinary measure, that is, the recognition of the relevant training courses. However, it is reasonable to deem that such cases are subject to the disposition where the person is mobilized or accompanied by the specific form or method of "any other improper means" in the course of receiving subsidies based on such false facts.

2) Regarding the instant case, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff received support equivalent to KRW 2,230,00 of the training expenses including D et al. who did not actually attend the training course. However, in light of the aforementioned facts, the following circumstances revealed by the facts, namely, ① the act of false attendance of each 2 to 5-day trainees for each 1 to 4 trainees by each training course, which appears to be due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral signature or signing by proxy on the part of the trainee or signing by proxy. ② Although the Plaintiff did not properly manage the attendance of the trainee, the Plaintiff did not appear to have applied for training expenses without being involved in the Plaintiff’s aforementioned false attendance or without being aware of such facts, ③ the Plaintiff’s act of false attendance, and the content, circumstance, scale, and the economic degree of the Plaintiff’s gain, etc., and the Plaintiff’s act of false participation in the training course or the Plaintiff’s act of false participation in the training, etc. or the Plaintiff’s act of receiving training expenses cannot be deemed to constitute unlawful participation in the training course.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is illegal because the grounds for the cancellation of recognition are not recognized. According to the provisions of Article 25(2) of the former Vocational Skills Development Act, the restriction of recognition of this case is premised on the legitimacy and validity of each of the dispositions of this case. Thus, as long as each of the dispositions of this case cannot be exempt from revocation due to illegality, the restriction of recognition

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

The presiding judge, judge and assistant judge;

Judges Park Jae-woo

Judges Park Gin-uri

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.