(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.2.20. 선고 2012누19474 판결

2. On December 26, 2011, the Defendant’s disposition of notifying the Plaintiff of the non-issuance of a certificate of workplace skill development training instructor is revoked.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 18, 2004, the Plaintiff obtained a Class 3 certificate of qualification for vocational skills development teachers (hereinafter referred to as “training teachers”), and on January 27, 201, obtained a Class 3 certificate of qualification for training teachers’ industrial facilities.

B. From December 5, 2011 to December 16, 2011, the Plaintiff completed a training course for improving class 2 in B education center for the mechanical processing of training instructors, and on December 19, 2011, applied for issuance of class 2 qualification certificate for training instructors mechanical processing to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. On December 26, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that part of the education and training experience submitted by the Plaintiff was considered at the time of acquiring the certificate of class 3 industrial equipment for training instructors, and that the training experience does not meet the requirements for issuing class 2 training instructors' certificate because it does not exceed 3 years since the training experience does not meet the requirements for issuing class 2 training instructors' certificate (hereinafter "the instant disposition").

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s experience taken into account the acquisition of another qualification certificate without any legal basis cannot be included in the career calculation for the acquisition of the pertinent qualification certificate, which is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

At the time of the application of this case, we examine whether the defendant's standard is reasonable and appropriate from the objective point of view that "the experience taken into account when acquiring another certificate of qualification is not recognized" because there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff has been engaged in education and training for more than three years, including "the experience taken into account while acquiring a certificate of qualification for training teachers' industrial facility

Article 33(2) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers provides that a person who intends to become a training teacher shall obtain a training teacher qualification certificate from the Minister of Employment and Labor after meeting the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 28 and [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23839, Jun. 5, 2012) classify training teachers into Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3. In addition, when converting the career years, 100% of the training teacher's qualification or work experience or work experience or work experience in the same occupation as the training teacher intends to acquire is recognized, and 70% of the training experience or work experience or work experience in the similar occupation in the field to which the qualification of the training teacher belongs shall be recognized and publicly notified by the Minister of Employment and Labor. Accordingly, Article 4 and [Attachment 1] of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers shall be divided into the qualifications of the training teacher and similar occupation.

However, the defendant set the standard that "it is not possible to recognize overlapping work experience in accordance with the principle of conversion rate of work experience of teachers through the "working manual, such as the issuance of qualification certificates for vocational skills development training teachers" for the purpose of securing the expertise of training teachers and preventing the recurrence of qualification certificates. In full view of the contents of the above relevant regulations and the following, it is not objectively reasonable and reasonable to convert the above work experience period by the defendant

(1) The purpose of relevant provisions is to train training instructors who have expertise in the relevant field and can teach workers for workplace skill development training, and it is reasonable to deem that all relevant fields have expertise in training and work experience or work experience recognized as work experience in multiple types of qualifications. Thus, excluding work experience considered in the acquisition of other certificates of qualification at the time of conversion of work experience experience is not related to securing the expertise of teachers.

② In a case where a person who has engaged in the field of machinery processing only uses all education and training experience or work experience in the field of machinery processing to acquire a teacher’s license in the field of industrial facilities, according to the above criteria of the defendant, the expertise in the field of machinery processing is recognized and unreasonable.

(3) The purpose of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers is to recognize the career experience or actual experience in a similar occupation as a career to acquire a certain percentage of the qualification certificate for a similar occupation is to induce the acquisition of the qualification certificate for an adjacent area, in addition to the qualification certificate for the relevant field, so that he/she can flexibly cope with changes in new occupation, such as integration or differentiation with neighboring areas at the request of the mayor, reorganization, and reorganization. However, failure to take into account overlapping career experience at the time of conversion of career

④ In addition to securing expertise of training teachers, the Defendant asserts that it is necessary not to recognize overlapping experience in order to prevent the recurrence of qualification certificates. However, this is not necessary to achieve one training experience or work experience in order to ensure that it does not fall under multiple qualifications, or to achieve it in such a way as to coordinate the occupational system so that it does not overlap with the field of education, training experience or work experience recognized as work experience in each qualification type, or to pursue such policy purpose by restricting the acquisition of qualification certificates without any legal basis.

Therefore, even though the Plaintiff’s qualification as a training teacher in Grade III and has been subject to improvement training for not less than three years, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case by excluding the experience considered at the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer of industrial facilities without legal basis, is illegal as it abuse of discretion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has concluded otherwise is unfair, so it shall be revoked, and it shall be decided as per Disposition with the decision to revoke the disposition of this case.