(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.8.25. 선고 2016구합21450 판결

① The Defendant’s revocation of recognition of the B curriculum for the Plaintiff on January 6, 2016, and the restriction of recognition of the instant curriculum for one year, and ② revocation of recognition of the C curriculum for the Plaintiff on March 8, 2016, and revocation of recognition of the instant curriculum for the Plaintiff on March 8, 2016, respectively.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is the operator of the instant training establishment that had conducted workplace skill development training for the unemployed, etc. at the E-professional School located in Suwon-gu, Busan (hereinafter referred to as the “instant training establishment”) designated as the designated occupational training establishment by the defendant pursuant to Article 28 of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act, and operated the training expenses required by the defendant. The training courses of the instant training establishment are as follows.

List of votes

A person shall be appointed.

B. On December 3, 2015, the Defendant conducted the instant training facility’s instruction and supervision (hereinafter “B”) and conducted the training on January 6, 2016 through a hearing, and issued seven tickets among the total nine books of the recognized teaching materials to trainees, pursuant to Article 19 of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2] [Attachment 1-5] of the Enforcement Rule of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act, and Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2](a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act (hereinafter “instant Disposition 1”) to the Plaintiff and one year (from January 7, 2016 to January 6, 2017) to restrict the recognition of entrustment of the relevant course (hereinafter “instant Disposition 1”).

C. On January 26, 2016, the Defendant: (a) conducted a joint inspection of the vocational ability review board and the instant training establishment; (b) conducted a voluntary change of the training content; (c) conducted a training without using recognized teaching materials; or (d) conducted a training at an unauthorized training place on March 8, 2016; and (c) conducted a training in violation of the contents recognized to the extent that it would violate the purpose of the training; (b) accordingly, the Defendant issued a disposition restricting the recognition of the entrustment of the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 19 of the Workers’ Vocational Ability Development Act; (c) Article 6-3 [Attachment Table 1-2] 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act and Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2] 1 year (from March 9, 2016 to March 8, 2017).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 9, 14 (if any, including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to the instant disposition No. 1, the instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Matters concerning the voluntary change of the contents of training

The plaintiff, which is utilized as a main method of advertising or marketing, has focused on the training of online marketing techniques through individual tables, and after the completion of the training course, the plaintiff should be aware of the home waste paper management and e-mail utilization methods in order to facilitate the performance of the Internet marketing PR business desired by the company when the trainee is employed after the completion of the training course. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that such training course violates the contents recognized to the extent that it would violate the purpose of training as to important matters B.

② Of the 7 tickets issued by the Plaintiff regarding non-assignments of 7 books among the 9 books of authorized teaching materials, the training instructors in charge did not timely provide two copies of the teaching materials when the training instructors were to take lessons as their own teaching materials because of the low practical utilization, but were not timely provided to the extent, and the rest of 3 books was not yet provided since they had not yet been given due to the fact that the curriculum corresponding to the teaching materials was not yet in progress. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not deliver 7 books of 7 books of bad faith or gross negligence.

2) As to the instant disposition No. 2, the instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

① With respect to any voluntary change in the training content, the age difference between trainees is severe, and there are many differences in knowledge and experience related to the training course, so that many trainees would apply for an electrical engineer qualification examination on January 2016, which occurred even when the instructors in charge are operating part of the training hours as a summary of the training hours in order to help the trainees find employment or re-employment. However, since the subjects should be based on the above subjects, it cannot be deemed that the difficulty of the summary of the subjects in the course is against the purpose of the training. Moreover, the survey conducted on January 26, 2016 for the trainees at the time of the joint inspection was conducted in the strong pressure atmosphere emphasizing the formal logic of the Defendant’s employees, and thus, cannot be trusted.

(2) As to the non-use of recognized teaching materials

Although the Plaintiff provided both trainees with the training teaching materials according to the C Implementation Plan, among the above teaching materials, it is organized mainly for the qualification certificate in the case of the “so-called solar power generation technician” among the above teaching materials, and there was a lack of solar power generation equipment to understand solar power generation facilities, so it is difficult to conduct the curriculum only by the above teaching materials during the pertinent class hours, and it is not possible to use the above teaching materials themselves.

③ At the time of the joint inspection on January 26, 2016, trainees conducted practical training at the training place in the Plaintiff lecture room 503 on the subjects of “design/construction of solar power generation system” according to C training. However, some students were performing practical training in the 403 lecture room to form a control team using solar power equipment through the computer screen. In addition, it is evident that the virtual training by using such computer is for the construction of a system using solar power equipment, and it is a practical class for the subjects related to the design/construction of the solar power generation system. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the class was conducted only under 505, which was assigned as a practice room, but only under 403, which was assigned as a computer room, there were some students.

3) Violation of the principle of deviation, abuse or proportionality of discretionary power (as to the First and Second Measures in this case)

Even if the Plaintiff committed a violation, the first and second dispositions of this case are too harsh to the Plaintiff, or are in violation of the principle of proportionality.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) As to the first disposition of this case

A) Facts of recognition

① At the time of guidance and supervision on December 3, 2015, the Defendant obtained an actual time table consisting of all different subjects from that recognized by the Plaintiff from G at the time of instruction and supervision on December 3, 2015. According to the above time table, the advertising promotion strategy consisting of a total of 40 hours in total on the recognized time table is cafe24 basic functions and HTM&CS; the marketing PR implementation consisting of a total of 64 hours in total on the recognized time table; HTM&CS; the press meeting consisting of a total of 60 hours in total on the recognized time table; and the press meeting consisting of a large of 60 hours in total on the approved time table.

② At the time of the above guidance and supervision, the contents of classes in the training plan approved by the Plaintiff were as follows: (a) marketing promotional materials production (frigrology curriculum) using teaching materials for 'the search pressese knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife kn

③ At the time of the above guidance and supervision, five trainees submitted to the Defendant a survey answer sheet regarding B. At the time of receipt of teaching materials of each of the above survey papers, they indicated 9 only 2 out of 9 books, and in the column of ‘HTML, shopping mall', and ‘the curriculum content of the previous lecture', 'HTML', and 'the curriculum content of the present lecture', and 'the present curriculum content' were known to the Defendant that one of the trainees was emphasizing the contents related to the promotion of advertisement, but he did not present the contents related to the Internet shopping mall, website production, HTML, HTML, and Potool-related lessons. In addition, the three trainees did not prepare a confirmation letter to the effect that he/she would be able to participate in the training and present the contents that he/she would be able to obtain recognition of the right to participate in the training (the contents that are different from the contents that he/she would be allowed to participate in the training and present it).

⑤ On November 26, 2015, one trainee attending B, who took the training course, reported the Defendant on November 30, 2015, that he/she could not meet his/her expectation because of the difference between “training plan and present training programs on the HRD (training Information Network),” and that on November 30, 2015, he/she notified the Defendant of the fact that he/she could not satisfy his/her expectation because he/she participated in B by wire from October 13, 2015 to November 25, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 12 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

According to the above facts, the plaintiff is deemed to have organized 40% of 420 hours prior to the commencement of the training as a subject not approved for the training hours (40% of 164 hours under the above paragraph (=40 hours + 64 hours + 60 hours) and recruited trainees and operated actually B as a subject of the above voluntary modification. Among the 9 tickets of recognized teaching materials, the unissued seven tickets among the 9 tickets of the training materials do not deliver teaching materials because the training schedule has not arrived but did not deliver the teaching materials. If the training is conducted at will according to the recognized time table, it is judged that the training materials to be provided do not actually need to change the 40% of the training course's quantity at will and are not delivered to trainees. In light of the circumstances, attitudes, degree, etc. of such violation, it is reasonable to deem that the training materials have been conducted in violation of the contents to the extent that they violate the purpose of the training.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) As to the second disposition of this case

A) Facts of recognition

① The “training target” column of the “detailed information on training courses submitted by the Plaintiff at the time when the Plaintiff was recognized as vocational skills development training course by the Minister of Employment and Labor in relation to C refers to the training target, namely, understanding the level of solar power generation technology and practicing the operation of equipment and design and construction of solar power generation systems using various technologies, such as solar batteries, electric power electronics, measuring control, electrical equipment, and automatic control, and training, which is the function of operating equipment and designing, constructing, maintaining, and managing power generation facilities that produce electricity using solar energy.”

2016. 1. 26. 합동점검 당시 참석한 직업능력심사평가원 전문위원 1은 태양 광설계, 시공, 유지, 보수능력의 향상을 목적으로 하는 C은 실무위주의 교육훈련이 필요하나 동 훈련과정에서는 태양광집열판을 설치하고 모듈을 시공하고 있지 않아 태양광 분야수업은 지극히 미비되었고, 점검 당시 실제 수업은 시퀀스제어 및 PLC기초 및 CAD 작업위주로 실시되고 있다는 내용의 의견서를 피고에게 제출하였다.

③ From December 14, 2015, according to the survey for 13 trainees, 7 trainees marks the 'training method for the design/construction (management/maintenance/maintenance) of the solar system design/construction (management/maintenance/maintenance)' to the 14th anniversary of the 2015, and 19th anniversary of the 2015, 3 trainees were placed in the 1st century, and 5 trainees were placed in the 9th anniversary of the 19th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 206th anniversary of the 30th anniversary of the 30th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 30th anniversary of the 3rd of the 3006th.

④ 피고의 2016. 1. 26. 합동점검 당시 원고는 강의실 403호와 실습실 505호로 분반하여 훈련생들에게 전기관련 수업인 시퀀스제어 및 PLC제어 교과목(505호), CAD 교과목(403호)을 강의하고 있었음에도 훈련일지에는 태양광발전시스템시공 교과목의 수업을 실시한 것처럼 기록하였다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 14 and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

According to the above facts, the defendant arbitrarily changed the contents of the training differently from the contents of the workplace skill development training course recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor, which is the State-funded course, and conducted arbitrarily a subcommittee related thereto, and judged that part of the recognized teaching materials was not used. Unlike the training contents of C, unlike the training contents submitted by the plaintiff at the time of the examination for recognition, most of the curriculum of solar power generation system operation, which requires practical training under the training plan, has been conducted as theoretical classes without using the solar system as practical training equipment, and accordingly, if some of the teaching materials have not been delivered and voluntary classes have been conducted, it is reasonable to deem that the training was conducted in violation of the contents recognized to the extent that it would violate the purpose of training.

3) Determination as to whether a person has violated the principle of deviation, abuse, or proportionality of discretionary power (as to the disposition Nos. 1 and 2)

A) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du19297, Jul. 19, 2007) with the degree of infringement on public interest by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du19297, Jul. 19, 2007). Even if the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition are not merely that set the internal business rules of administrative agencies, the criteria for disposition are not in itself consistent with the Constitution or laws, or that the punitive administrative disposition in accordance with the above disposition is not deemed significantly unreasonable in light of the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, and the content and purport of the relevant statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20

B) In this case, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff conducted training in violation of the purpose of training as seen earlier, as seen earlier. ② Article 19 of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act and Article 6-3 [Attachment Table 1-2, 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act provides that the cancellation of recognition where the Plaintiff violated the purpose of training regarding the important matters of training courses, and one-year entrustment and restriction on recognition should be imposed. Such disposition is in accordance with the disposition standards under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and there is no reasonable ground to see that it is considerably unfair as it is in accordance with the above disposition standards. ③ The Plaintiff’s disposition cannot be considered as a disposition of occupational ability development training for reasons of lack of training equipment from the Defendant in relation to C and lack of early consultation on November 20, 2015, on the ground that it is inappropriate for the Plaintiff to conduct training at the expense of public interest, and thus, the Plaintiff’s modification of the purpose of this case’s vocational ability development training need not be considered as the modification of the Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.