2013Nu168. Revocation of designation of training facilities, etc.

Korea Manpower Development Institute, a foundation for workplace skill development training

The President of the Gwangju Regional Labor Agency

Gwangju District Court Decision 2010Guhap658 Decided October 24, 2013

March 6, 2014

April 3, 2014

1. The part against the defendant, which exceeds the subsequent order for revocation, among the part concerning the additional collection of judgment in the first instance, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall

The Defendant’s disposition of additional collection of KRW 1,366,230 against the Plaintiff on February 16, 2010, which exceeds KRW 1,613,940, shall be revoked.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. One-fifth of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

On February 16, 2010, the Defendant’s restriction on the recognition of the entrustment of three months to Plaintiff on the entire course, restriction on the recognition of the entrustment of one year for the pertinent training course, refund of KRW 1,613,940 for the training course, additional collection of KRW 1,613,940 for the training course, restriction on the payment for one year for vocational skills development training expenses, and revocation of the designation of the designated occupational training establishment is revoked.

In the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the defendant, excluding the part of payment restriction for vocational skills development training costs for one year, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation of this case is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or modification as follows.

[Supplementary Use]

○ The term "former Act on the Development of Functions" at the last 8th place shall be amended by "Act on the Development of Functions".

【Revised Part】

○ The phrase “an additional collection of KRW 1,613,940,000 shall be amended as follows:

According to Article 16(6)1 (a) and (b) of the amended Functional Development Act, Article 13-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 6(1)1 (a) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, where the amount subsidized by fraud or other improper means is less than KRW 1,000,000 by a person whose commission contract is terminated, an administrative agency may additionally collect an amount equivalent to five times the amount (where there is no number of times requested for expenses by fraud or other improper means during the five years prior to the date of detection of the violation, an amount equivalent to three times the amount subsidized by such fraudulent or other improper means) from the person whose commission contract is terminated.

As to the instant case, the Defendant considered the Plaintiff’s illegal receipt amount as KRW 1,613,940 and additionally collected the amount corresponding thereto. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s payment of training expenses that the Plaintiff received by false or other unlawful means is 455,410, and there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff had previously filed a claim for expenses by false or other unlawful means, according to the above provisions, the Defendant may additionally collect KRW 1,366,230, which is 455,410, and KRW 1,366,230, which is 300,000,000 won. Thus, the aforementioned additional collection disposition is lawful within the scope of KRW 1,36,230, and the exceeding part shall

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant who ordered the revocation exceeding the above recognition amount among the part concerning the additional collection disposition of the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, it is revoked, and the plaintiff's title corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge Park Byung-il

Judges Kim Jae-ho

Judges Lee So-hee