(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.8.28. 선고 2020누33482 판결

On May 9, 2019, the Defendant’s disposition to revoke recognition of the training courses for the driver on the Plaintiff + the disposition to revoke recognition of the training courses for one year (from May 10, 2019 to May 9, 2020) and the disposition to restrict the entrustment of and recognition for the same course and the disposition to additionally add the same course to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning to be stated in this judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part on the "....." of the judgment of the court of first instance from 10 to 4th 11 is written as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

“. c. Determination

1) If the cancellation or withdrawal of a beneficial administrative disposition is revoked or suspended, it would infringe the vested rights of the people already granted. Thus, even if there are grounds such as cancellation, the exercise of the right to cancel, etc. is determined by comparing and comparing with the disadvantage of the other party, only when it is necessary for the important public interest to justify the infringement of the vested rights or when it is necessary to protect the interests of a third party. If the disadvantage of the other party is enormous than that of the public interest, it is against the discretionary authority in itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7606, Jul. 22, 2004).

2) According to the evidence Nos. 4, 4, and 5 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 275, Dec. 27, 2019; hereinafter the same), Article 8(1)3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 275, Dec. 27, 2019; hereinafter the same) stipulates as one of the requirements for “number of Classes per class” in order to be recognized as a training course, the Minister of Employment and Labor shall determine the detailed matters by the public notice. "Standards for the Examination of Training Facilities" provides that the size of the lecture room shall be 30 meters per 10 persons, if one person is added, it shall be secured 1.5 meters per one person; whether a vocational training institution complies with the number of trainees when examining whether the training course is properly conducted;

3) However, Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2] [Attachment 5] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, which the Defendant’s ground provision for the instant disposition, provides that “Where the Defendant violated the contents of training, training methods, training instructors and instructors, training places, training facilities and equipment, etc. which are recognized to be in violation of the purpose of training, to the extent that the Defendant violated the purpose of training.” In light of the above legal principles, when comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments as a whole, the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the arguments, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff violated the contents recognized to be in violation of the purpose of training. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition prior to

① The course of ‘acquisition of qualifications as driving technician (written + practical) in the Plaintiff’s workplace skill development training course is comprised of 5 days in the training day, average 4 hours in the training day, total 20 hours in the training day (or 60 hours in the theory, 160 hours in the practical period). The purpose of the training is to acquire qualifications as driving technician in the train to extract.

② Although the Plaintiff is running a school with 11 persons, not 10 persons, who are determined at the time of the theoretical lecture, the Plaintiff’s number of trainees accordingly is not sufficient to have 1.1m area of the lecture room and 1m area of the safety sign tamp on the basis of the number of trainees during the training course (based on the theory). Ten State-funded trainees passed the written examination after the above theoretical lecture, and it is difficult to deem that such offense was adversely affected or damaged by the training course.

③ Training courses are deemed more important in terms of their nature than the theoretical lecture. The Plaintiff participated more in the training course than ten general trainees, but this was limited to the theoretical lecture. The practical training course was conducted only 10 students, and the general students received education from instructors for the practical training course.

④ Around August 2, 2012, the Plaintiff opened a private teaching institute with the authorization of 20 students, and opened 20 students in the lecture room, respectively. On the other hand, the general students taking the theoretical lecture are very small. On the other hand, the Plaintiff was unable to proceed with a separate theoretical lecture for one of the general students. As it is practically difficult for the Plaintiff to proceed with a separate theoretical lecture, 10 students in the state-funded training to hear the theoretical lecture.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.