2012Nu36387. Revocation, etc. of designation, which is the workplace skill development training course

A Stock Company

The Administrator of the Central and Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap5603 Decided November 1, 2012

April 18, 2013

January 9, 2014

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

Each disposition recorded in the attached Form 1 List against the plaintiff by the defendant shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff obtained recognition of vocational skills development training courses from the Defendant, and conducted occupational ability development training as described in the following [Attachment 1] for its employees from November 21, 2007 to April 18, 2009, and applied to the head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency for vocational skills development training expenses and received the payment of training expenses.

[Attachment 1]

A person shall be appointed.

B. After that, on the date stated in the separate sheet of Disposition No. 1, the defendant issued a disposition to revoke the recognition of each of the training courses of this case as shown in the separate sheet No. 25 (1) 2 and 2 of the former Workers' Vocational Skills Development Act (amended by Act No. 9792 of Oct. 9, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "former Vocational Skills Development Act") and the training courses of this case as stated in the separate sheet No. 25 (1) 2 and 2 of the former Workers' Vocational Skills Development Act (hereinafter referred to as "the revocation of the recognition of each of the instant training courses"), on the ground that "the trainees mentioned in the separate sheet No. 2 of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the instant disposition to revoke the recognition") and some of the training courses of this case, for three months.

[Attachment 2]

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 to 5, and Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not receive training expenses support by “a false or other unlawful means, such as hiding or falsely applying for training expenses, even though he/she is aware of the attendance of a trainee,” but only filed an application for subsidies with the knowledge that he/she was duly able to complete the training course because he/she did not recognize ex post facto display of the trainee, representation display, etc. Therefore, the instant revocation disposition and the instant recognition restriction disposition based thereon should be revoked because it is unlawful as the grounds for the instant revocation disposition are not recognized.

B. Determination

(1) "False or other unlawful means" under Article 25 (1) 2 of the former Vocational Training Act means all acts that a person, who is not entitled to receive subsidies for expenses incurred in conducting vocational skills development training for workers, is not correct in light of the social norms in order to see the fact that he/she is qualified to do so, and that such act may affect the decision-making on the payment of training expenses, and where a person who has obtained authorization for the vocational skills development training course, claims training expenses that should not be paid in cases where a trainee claims training fees differently from the actual fact that he/she was trained, in violation of the legal or contractual obligations under the law on the management of the withdrawal from training, etc. of trainees, even though he/she did not receive training (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du7175, Jun. 13, 2013).

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including each number), although trainees listed in the above [Attachment 2] were absent for some of the training periods due to overseas departure, it can be recognized that the trainee himself/herself was present at the training course during the overseas business trip period after he/she went through his/her overseas business trip, or other fesscence personnel displayed an appearance on behalf of other fesscence personnel. This is recognized as the plaintiff's negligence of violating the legal or contractual obligations on the running-out management, etc. of trainees (the plaintiff is also the person who has failed to manage fescence by himself/herself). The plaintiff's application for training expenses in relation to days on which the trainee was not actually present at each of the training courses in this case, and the plaintiff was also the person who received training expenses equivalent to 2,235,209 won in total, as stated in the above [Attachment 2].

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff received training expenses for each of the training courses of this case by fraud or other improper means. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, public judge and senior judge;

Judges, Appointment and Civility

Judges Cho Jong-sung

Attached Table 1

List of Disposition

A person shall be appointed.