(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.7.23. 선고 2014구합10059 판결

1. On May 7, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of refundinging KRW 3,180,000, the amount of occupational ability development training costs illegally received by the Plaintiff, the disposition of additionally collecting KRW 3,180,000, and the disposition of restricting subsidies and loans for 330 days is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is working as the president of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Child Care Center(hereinafter referred to as the "Child Care Center of this case").

B. On May 7, 2014, the Defendant, who was delegated with the authority of the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to Article 60 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development”) and Article 52(1)10 and 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, concluded a contract with the head of the Education Development Institute (hereinafter “the head of the Education Development Institute”) for the entrustment of workplace skill development training to the employees belonging to the instant childcare centers, such as play guidance and training, and subsequently, was unable to receive subsidies for workplace skill development training expenses pursuant to Article 20(1)1 of the Vocational Skills Development Act because the said employees failed to meet the requirements for completing training, on the ground that the Plaintiff was paid expenses for workplace skill development training by fraud or other improper means, such as inputting computerized data as if the said workers meet the requirements for completing training, and thus, received subsidies for workplace skill development training expenses in total pursuant to Article 56(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act (hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development Act”).

2. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) According to Articles 55(2) and 56(2) and (3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, a business owner who received subsidies for vocational skills development training costs becomes the other party to the disposition to refund the amount of unlawful payments for vocational skills development training costs, the disposition to additionally collect costs, and the disposition to restrict subsidies and loans. However, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a business owner who received subsidies for vocational skills development costs merely because it is employed by school foundation D (hereinafter “instant school foundation”). Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a party to the disposition to refund the amount of unlawful payments for vocational skills development costs, the disposition of this case rendered to the Plaintiff is unlawful.

2) Even if the Plaintiff is a business owner who is the other party to the disposition of refunding the amount of unfair receipt of occupational ability development training costs, additional collection, and restriction on support and loan, the Plaintiff entrusted occupational ability development training to the head and the head and the head and the Human Resources Development Institute.

In other words, the Plaintiff committed an unlawful act, such as inputting electronic data as if the above workers meet the requirements for completing the training. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not intervene in such unlawful act by the head of the Education Development Institute. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff received the cost of workplace skill development training by fraud or other improper means.

3) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s employees were misled to have satisfied the requirements for completing workplace skill development training due to the deception by the head of the Education Development Institute, and that all workplace skill development training costs subsidized by the Plaintiff were used as expenses for workplace skill development training for the employees belonging to the instant childcare center, and there was no amount individually used by the Plaintiff, the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and abused discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 20(1)1 of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that any business owner or any employers’ organization, workers’ organization, or federation thereof (hereinafter referred to as “business owner’s organization, workers’ organization, or federation thereof”) who conducts a training for the development of workers’ vocational skills may provide subsidies or loans for expenses incurred in conducting such training. Article 55(2)1 of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that where any business owner or any employers’ organization, etc. who has received subsidies for training expenses pursuant to Article 20 of the Vocational Skills Development Act uses any false or other unlawful means, the Minister of Employment and Labor may choose not to provide subsidies or loans pursuant to Article 20 of the Vocational Skills Development Act for a period prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor within three years from the date the subsidies for training expenses are granted. Article 56(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that the Minister of Employment and Labor may order any business owner or any employers’ organization, etc. whose subsidies or loans are restricted pursuant to Article 55(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act to return the amount they received by fraudulent or other unlawful means.

According to the above provision, it is reasonable to view that the other party to the disposition to refund the amount of unfair receipt of vocational training expenses, to additionally collect, and to restrict support and loan is the business owner or business owner's organization, etc. who received subsidies for vocational training expenses, and the "business owner or business owner's organization, etc."

However, the following circumstances revealed from the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 21, 22, and Gap evidence Nos. 23-1, and 23-2, i.e., the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government concluded a contract to entrust the operation of the child care center of this case to the school foundation of this case pursuant to Article 24 (2) of the Infant Care Act, ② the school foundation of this case employs the plaintiff as the principal of the child care center of this case in accordance with the above entrustment contract, and ③ the plaintiff has received benefits from the school foundation of this case as well as other employees working at the child care center of this case. In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the person operating the child care center of this case is the school foundation of this case, and the plaintiff is employed by the school

Therefore, since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a business owner or business owner’s organization who received subsidies for workplace skill development training costs, the Plaintiff cannot be the other party to the disposition of refunding the amount of unfair receipt of workplace skill development training costs.

2) On this ground, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is merely a business owner, but is merely a worker after having applied for the cost of workplace skill development training and thus cannot become the other party to the disposition of refunding the cost of workplace skill development training and the disposition of additionally collecting and restricting the cost of workplace skill development training is inconsistent with the preceding act and accordingly, the Plaintiff is the other party to the disposition of refunding the cost of workplace skill development training and the disposition of additionally collecting and lending the cost of workplace skill development training.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff applied for workplace skill development training expenses on behalf of the instant school juristic person, which is an employer of the instant childcare center, in the light of the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff was employed as the principal of the instant childcare center and was in general in charge of the management of the instant childcare center; (b) the Plaintiff applied for workplace skill development training expenses in the capacity of the principal of the instant childcare center; and (c) the Plaintiff was used as the expenses for workplace skill development training for the employees of the instant childcare center and the benefits therefrom are attributed to the instant school juristic person, both of which are an employer; and (b) it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff applied for workplace skill development training expenses on behalf of the instant school juristic person, which is the employer of the instant childcare center. Furthermore, the Defendant must verify whether the title holder is a business owner; and (c) if the Plaintiff applied for workplace skill development training expenses, the Plaintiff was a holder of the workplace who was paid workplace skill development training expenses

In light of the above circumstances, since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have committed acts inconsistent with the preceding act or received the cost of workplace skill development training by fraud or other improper means, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the party to the disposition to refund the amount of unfair occupational ability development training costs, to additionally collect and restrict subsidies and loans, is unlawful without having to examine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claims.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.