1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a private teaching institute under the name of “C” on the second floor of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Pursuant to Article 60 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter referred to as the "Vocational Skills Development Act") and Article 52 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the head of the local employment and labor office that has been delegated the authority to recognize and revoke the training courses by the Minister of Employment and Labor under Article 19

On March 2014, the Plaintiff received, as a training course for combining the accounts of the unemployed in accordance with Article 19(1) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, the process of “a person who has been employed in the workplace” and “a person who has been employed in the workplace” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant courses”) operated by the Plaintiff from the Defendant.

B. On March 25, 2015, the Defendant revoked the “recognition” of each process of this case based on Article 19(2)5 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2] of the same Act, and Article 6-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and (2) of the same Act, on the ground that “the Plaintiff violated the contents recognized to the extent that it would be in violation of the purpose of training by keeping the Plaintiff’s participation card en bloc and making it improper for the Plaintiff to manage the participation, and made a disposition to restrict the “entrustment” or “recognition” of each process of this case for six months (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion did not manage the participation of trainees by improper means.

Therefore, there is no fact that caused the instant disposition.

In addition, the plaintiff did not have intention to do so, and the plaintiff only stored the withdrawal card for his convenience at the request of the trainee, and the plaintiff is subject to the disposition of this case.