1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the judgment on the plaintiffs’ assertion is added under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is based on the same part of the judgment of the first instance, in addition to adding the judgment on the plaintiffs’ assertion.

(Other, the grounds alleged by the plaintiffs in the appeal are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiffs in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance court is examined, the fact finding and the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the plaintiffs' claims are justifiable). [See Articles 55 and 56 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers on August 17, 2016 and Articles 22 and 22-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers" in the second sentence of the second sentence of the first instance judgment "as stated in the purport of the claim as of August 17, 2016," "in accordance with Articles 5 and 56 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers and Articles 22 and 22-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers" in the third sentence of the first instance

Article 55 and 56 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers refers to all acts that are not correct under the social norms in order to encourage a person who is not eligible to receive training costs as if he/she is qualified or to conceal the fact that he/she is not qualified, and that are affirmative and passive acts that may affect the decision-making on the payment of training costs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du3777, Jun. 13, 2013; 2011Du7175, Jun. 13, 2013; 2012Du24764, Jul. 24, 2014). In addition, sanctions against administrative violations are sanctions against the objective facts that are administrative regulations violations to achieve administrative purposes, and thus, they are not a real offender, but a person responsible for administrative affairs.