2012Nu 4496 Order to refund the illegally received amount of vocational ability development training expenses

Revocation

A Stock Company

The head of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap8360 Decided January 12, 2012

January 17, 2014

February 14, 2014

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On June 9, 2011, the Defendant revoked the portion of KRW 17,883,990 (the portion of the payment during the payment restriction period) of the business owner’s vocational ability development training expenses refund against the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff reduced the claim in the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

From March 17, 2008 to March 19, 2008, the Plaintiff conducted a quality expert training course with respect to its employees, and applied for training expenses to the Defendant on September 25, 2008. Accordingly, the Defendant determined to provide support for the total of KRW 117,264 won per capita training fees, and KRW 20,000, and paid it to the Plaintiff on October 9, 2008.

Since March 17, 2008 to March 21, 2008, the defendant confirmed that the above commissioned education was completed even if the students B left Korea, and thereafter, the defendant returned the above commissioned education. Article 35 of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 56 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21015, Sept. 18, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 25 (4) 1 of the former Workers' Vocational Skills Development Act (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 2008); Article 22-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21398, Mar. 31, 2009); Article 16 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 1697, Apr. 19, 20197). 20

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments in the evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the fact that the Defendant voluntarily cancelled the instant disposition on October 22, 2013 pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s decision (Supreme Court Order 2011HunBa390 Decided August 29, 2013) that Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act violates the principle of comprehensive delegation, and thus, is unconstitutional. Thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case became unlawful as there is no benefit of protecting rights.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked since it is unfair to conclude a different conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge and assistant judges;

Judges Gangseo-Appellee

Judge Shin Jae-hun