1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a person who operates workplace skill development training courses at the C Research Institute established under Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 501, and the defendant is the head of a local labor office who instructs and supervises training courses established and operated by the plaintiff according to the delegation by the Minister of Employment and Labor

In January 1, 2015, from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff operated three training courses with the recognition of three training courses, such as training courses for entertainment workers, special entertainment practice courses, and pipinging practice courses.

With respect to training courses for adjoining technicians (the training period: from July 30, 2015 to September 4, 2015; hereinafter referred to as “instant training course”), the Defendant: ① without permission for 60 hours from the date the training was established at the time of recognition of the training course to the date the training was conducted; ② the early termination of the training course in violation of the scheduled time (13 cc); ③ the payment of training materials, training equipment (safetyation, guards, etc.) to some trainees; ④ the payment of training materials, training equipment (safetyation, guards, etc.) to the date the training is completed from the date the training is completed to the date the training is completed; ④ The Defendant received training expenses for each trainee at the time of recognition of the training course, and the Defendant received training expenses for unfreshed training.

On August 8, 2016, “The instant disposition” (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) ordered the Plaintiff to return KRW 5,630,312, and the amount additionally collected, as well as KRW 5,630,312, on the ground that the grounds for the instant disposition (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) were stated in the claim.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, as a whole, of the evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, 1) Defendant did not present to the Plaintiff a specific basis for calculation of the amount of illegal receipt at the time of the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful in violation of Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.