(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.1.31. 선고 2017구합106441 판결

The disposition of revocation of the designation of the Master Craftsmen of Korea issued to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2017 by the Minister of Employment and Labor, and the disposition of recovery, such as the lump sum grant of the Master Craftsmen of Korea granted to the Plaintiff on October 24, 2017, shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff, who worked for technical appointment at the Daegu Service Center, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Tgu Service Center”), was selected as the Master of the Republic of Korea in accordance with Article 11(1) of the Act on Encouragement of Skilled Crafts by the Minister of Employment and Labor (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Minister”), and received a lump-sum grant of KRW 20 million around that time.

B. On August 31, 2017, Defendant Minister revoked the designation of the Master Craftsmen of Korea on the ground that he/she submitted to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2017, “the Plaintiff’s filing of an application for the Master Craftsmen” (hereinafter referred to as “grounds for Disposition 1”), and that he/she submitted his/her official seal without confirmation and approval, even though he/she did not directly participate in the quality improvement work (hereinafter referred to as “grounds for Disposition 2”). In accordance with the above revocation disposition, Defendant Chief Manpower Development Service of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Chief”) issued a disposition that the Plaintiff returned KRW 20 million to November 25, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The assertion on the grounds for the first disposition

After preparing a "other performance results" in the application for the Master Craftsmen of Korea, the Plaintiff requested C to change the official seal of the head of the Daegu Service Center, who works for the Plaintiff, in accordance with ordinary business practices to confirm the above performance. C to affix the official seal of the head of the Center on behalf of D, and the above fact was recorded in the official seal management ledger and obtained approval from D. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have affixed the official seal of the head of the Center without obtaining confirmation or approval of the head of the Center, which is the head of the department, in verifying the performance records entered in the application for the Master Craftsmen of Korea. Thus, the reason for the first disposition cannot be a legitimate reason for the disposition of revoking the selection of this case.

B. The assertion on the ground for the second disposition

The criteria for the examination of the designation of the Master Craftsmen of Korea in 2015 are one of the 'other results', 'in-house occupation' and 'in-house personal or divisional assistance proposal' related to the 'in-house occupation'. Accordingly, the plaintiff's total 33 items that the plaintiff proposed to improve quality on the internal computer network are stated in the application for the Master Craftsmen of Korea and other actual results. Therefore, the reasons for the second disposition cannot be the legitimate reason for the disposition.

Even if the grounds for action Nos. 1 and 2 are recognized, the Plaintiff obtained the official seal of the head of the Center, who is the head of the operating team C through the head of the operating team C in accordance with the ordinary business practice, and stated the “Proposal” as it is indicated in the application performance. Thus, deeming the Plaintiff’s act as falling under “false or unlawful means, which is the grounds for revocation of the selection of the Master Craftsmen of Korea,” is an excessive unfavorable interpretation to the Plaintiff beyond the scope of interpretation possible.

3. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

4. Whether the disposition of this case is unlawful

A. Determination on the assertion on the grounds for 1 and 2 disposition

(1) The main text of Article 12(1) of the Act on Encouragement of Skilled Crafts provides that "where a person selected as a Master Craftsmen of the Republic of Korea falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Government may cancel the designation of a Master Craftsmen of the Republic of Korea, as prescribed by Presidential Decree," and one of the reasons is "where the person is selected as a Master Craftsmen of the Republic of Korea by fraud or other improper means

In this context, “false or other unlawful means” means active and passive acts that could affect the decision-making process regarding the selection process of Master Craftsmen in Korea, even though they cannot be selected as Master Craftsmen in Korea through normal procedures.

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) On March 24, 2015, Defendant Minister publicly announced the "Plan for the Selection of Master Craftsmen of the Republic of Korea" on April 3, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendant Minister opened a project explanation meeting to explain the plan for the selection of Master Craftsmen of the Republic of Korea, schedule, qualification requirements, application method, selection procedure, etc., and distributed a guide containing the above contents. The Plaintiff was present at the above project explanation meeting. In addition, the criteria for the examination of Master Craftsmen of the Republic of Korea notified by Defendant Minister had an assessment item on the "the degree of contribution to the development of skilled crafts". The above evaluation item consists of "other performance records such as the improvement of processes and quality, such as the improvement of products, the improvement of the work process, the reduction of cost, the reduction of defect rate, etc." as one of the detailed items for the evaluation. The above other performance record is recognized only where the representative of the relevant company was certified, and it was recorded "the results of the evaluation and improvement of the number of individuals at issue" as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

It has contributed significantly to the increase in vehicle sales, including the improvement of service productivity.

D. However, all of the above 33 recommendations were the contents of the proposal to B head office, and the causes, methods, effects, and results of improvement were not directly performed by the plaintiff.

(E) On April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff sought confirmation from D of the head of the Daegu Service Center B, who was in office at the time of the above-mentioned performance. However, due to the absence of D, the Plaintiff received the official seal of the head of the Center instead of C, who is the head of the Operation Support Team.

A person shall be appointed.

(F) On the other hand, “A certified seal management ledger, such as the above indication, for the management of the official seal of the Daegu Service Center” was recorded, maintained, and recorded on behalf of the head of the service center, but the date, contents, and the person in charge was recorded when the official seal was affixed on behalf of the head of the service center, and it was finally confirmed and approved by the head of the service center. C signed the official seal of the head of the service center on the confirmation part of the Plaintiff’s other performance, and entered the date, time, details, and the above official seal on the official seal management ledger. D was reported by C, and approved the official seal management ledger on the above official seal affixed. In addition, the Plaintiff’s other performance did not appear as a witness in this court and approved all the official seal affixed by the head of the service center in advance, and testified that D obtained ex post approval from the head of the service center after entering the official seal on the official seal management ledger.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, Evidence Nos. 9 and 10, Evidence No. 3, Witness C and D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings]

(3) Whether the ground for 1 disposition is unlawful

In other words, the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, i.e., ① at the time of the absence of the head of the Daegu Service Center, the head of the operating support team is deemed to have practical practices on the official seal affixed to the head of the Center in lieu of the official seal affixed by the head of the Center, ② the signature of the head of the operating support team and the head of the center on April 20, 2015, requesting approval, also includes the signature of the head of the operating support team and the head of the center on several occasions in the same month after the above item. Since the signature of the head of the center was written on several occasions, even if the head of the center did not affix the official seal on the above "the certificate of the activities for improving the quality of vehicles" as applied by the Plaintiff, it appears that the head of the center was approved by the above register with the knowledge of these circumstances at the close time, and the circumstances that the head of the center raised an objection against this part or that the head of the center did not have any reasonable reasons to recognize the official seal affixed by the representative of the relevant company.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s receipt of confirmation seals on other records as above is not a normal procedure, or an act that is deemed unfair under the social norms, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(4) Whether the ground for the second disposition is unlawful

In light of the contents, scope, amount, text, and the following circumstances revealed by the Plaintiff’s other records, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff entered the other records as the Plaintiff’s performance even in the part that the Plaintiff did not directly perform. Such other records are acts recognized as unfair by social norms that may affect the decision-making on the selection of a Master Crafts master, and thus, constitute “false or unlawful means” as stipulated in Article 12(1)1 of the Act on Encouragement of Skilled Crafts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the ground for disposition No. 2 cannot be a legitimate ground for disposition cannot be accepted.

A) The criteria for the examination of the selection of Master Craftsmen of Korea and the method of preparing applications and other matters to be considered as having been clearly distinguished from whether they are sole results or joint results on the list. The term “The Master Craftsmen of Korea” under the Act on the Encouragement of Skilled Crafts is defined as “the person selected pursuant to this Act from among those who contributed greatly to the development of skilled crafts and the improvement of the status of skilled craftsmen by engaging in the industrial site for a long time as a skilled technician, who holds the highest level of skilled crafts at the industrial site.” However, in light of the purport of the Korean Master Crafts System, the above criteria for the examination reflects that the result of the improvement of a particular technology serves as an important factor to determine whether they are sole results or joint results, and it is difficult to view that the criteria for the examination of the Minister of Justice for Defendant did not conflict with the purport of the

In addition, the plaintiff appeared to have been present at the business explanatory meeting explaining the above criteria and significances. Therefore, the plaintiff is bound to have been well aware of the methods of indicating other results. However, the 33 other results submitted by the plaintiff consisting of substitute items, "titles", "before improvement", "the causes and methods of improvement", and "the effects and results of improvement", and there is no indication that any other person than the plaintiff participated in each item. Therefore, it is consistent with the empirical rule that the 33 other results submitted by the plaintiff were accepted to the effect that the above other results were conducted by the plaintiff. However, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's existing problems were identified, but it was not a certain result or result by researching the causes or improvement methods of the problems. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's 33 results and other results were included in the contents of the plaintiff's selection beyond the scope of "the plaintiff's selection as the plaintiff's person who participated in it."

(D) As to the Plaintiff’s other performance results, the Plaintiff obtained a maximum of 0.8 points out of 1 per item. In light of the above gains ratio, it shall be deemed an evaluation conducted for the entire process of quality improvement as recorded in other performance, and it shall not be deemed as a result of a separate evaluation of only the “ proposal of the problem point” among the other contents stated in the relevant other performance.

(5) Sub-committee

As seen earlier, although the circumstances cited by the Defendants as the grounds for Disposition No. 1 cannot be a legitimate ground for Disposition, as long as the grounds for Disposition No. 2 are acknowledged, the Plaintiff’s appointment as the master of the Republic of Korea constitutes “any false or unlawful means” under Article 12(1)1 of the Act on Encouragement of Skilled Crafts. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the grounds for Disposition No. 1 are not recognized is groundless

E. Determination on the assertion of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

As seen earlier, Article 12(1)1 of the Act on Encouragement of Skilled Crafts provides that “where a person is selected as a Master Craftsmen of Korea by fraud or other improper means” is “where a person falls under subparagraph 1, the designation of a Master Craftsmen shall be revoked,” and the proviso of Article 12(1) of the Act on Encouragement of Skilled Crafts provides that “if a person falls under subparagraph 1, the designation of a Master Craftsmen shall be revoked: Provided, That if a person falls under subparagraph 1, the designation of a Master Craftsmen shall be revoked.” Thus, the revocation of the designation of a Master Craftsmen of Korea on the ground of subparagraph 1 is not a discretionary act, but a binding act

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition constitutes an act of discretionary discretion is without merit, without any need for further review.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.