2014Guhap20061 Revocation of designation of education and training facilities

A

Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Do Governor of Gyeongnam-do

September 16, 2014

October 24, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The revocation of designation of education and training facilities granted to the Plaintiff on December 12, 2013 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) The relationship between the parties;

The plaintiff is a person who operates the C Education Center in charge of education and training for the training of infant care teachers (hereinafter referred to as the "Education Center of this case") in Kimhae-si.

(b) proviso to disposition;

1) On May 7, 2013, D issued a certificate of completion to KRW 3,00,000 from 2,000 to 3,000,000 by the director of the education center for infant care teachers in the area of Gyeongnam-do and reported that D is under investigation at the Seoul Song-do Police Station on suspicion of having obtained a false certificate of completion.

2) Accordingly, on May 30, 2013, the Defendant conducted self-inspection of education and training facilities for infant care teachers in Gyeongnam-do, and on May 30, 2013, the instant education center conducted a business trip to check the education operation, educational administration, issuance of other certificates, etc.

3) However, as a result of the inspection, the Defendant discovered the fact that E, who received a certificate of completion on December 12, 2008 at the instant education center, was not indicated in the list of trainees reported to the Defendant in 2008.

(c)pre-notification and hearing procedures;

1) Meanwhile, on October 1, 2013, the Seoul Song-gu Police Station requested the Plaintiff and the Defendant to take administrative dispositions based on the violation of the Infant Care Act against the Defendant.

2) On October 7, 2013, the Defendant issued a false completion certificate to the Plaintiff on the grounds that he/she issued a false completion certificate to the Plaintiff, which constitutes revocation of the designation of education and training facilities.

3) On October 24, 2013, the Defendant held the hearing procedure. The Plaintiff appeared in the hearing procedure and issued a false certificate of completion to E who did not complete the permitted curriculum, and the Plaintiff stated to the effect that E opened and educated the weekend special class due to the relationship in Seoul.

(d) Cancellation of designation of education and training facilities;

1) On December 4, 2013, after deliberation and resolution by the Infant Care Policy Committee, the Defendant issued a completion certificate to the Plaintiff on December 12, 2013 pursuant to Article 16 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs No. 124, Jul. 3, 2009). The Defendant issued a disposition revoking the designation of education and training facilities (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2) Meanwhile, the Defendant, while rendering the instant disposition to the Plaintiff, decided to postpone the revocation of designation until the completion of the pertinent curriculum in order to guarantee the rights of the persons subject to education who completed the curriculum at the instant education center, notified the date of deferment to February 28, 2014. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 6 through 10 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s evidence Nos. 11, 16, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff issued a certificate of completion to E duly who completed the instant education center’s completion, and did not issue a false certificate of completion even though it did not meet the standard for recognition of completion of education. Although there is no ground for disposition, the Defendant issued a false certificate of completion to the Plaintiff that there was a ground for disposition only by being investigated by an investigative agency.

2) Even if the Plaintiff issued a false certificate of completion to E, this is merely a simple number of rooms. The Plaintiff received the instant education center around 2005 and discharged approximately 200 infant care teachers each year. The instant disposition may adversely affect the supply and demand of infant care teachers, and thereby, financial and honorary damages that the Plaintiff may sustain. Accordingly, the instant disposition is considerably more unfavorable than the public interest that the instant disposition intends to achieve, and thus, the instant disposition deviates from and abused discretionary power.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

1) Determination as to the non-existence of grounds for disposition

According to the following facts, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-1, 5, Eul evidence 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 16, and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, it is reasonable to view that Eul issued a false certificate of completion of education and training facilities to Eul, even though it did not actually complete education courses for infant care teachers at the education center of this case, and it did not meet the standards for recognition of completion of education under Article 21 (2) 2 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 9932, Jan. 18, 2010; hereinafter the "Child Care Act"), although the plaintiff issued a false certificate of completion of education and training facilities to E.

The plaintiff's above assertion against this is without merit.

① On March 14, 2008, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant on March 14, 2008, the 14th education center of this case, 200 students of class 3 childcare training courses, and the Defendant approved on March 31, 2008 by the Plaintiff, and the E’s name was not indicated on the 200 list of the students of class 3 childcare training courses.

② However, on February 11, 2009, the list of 198 persons who completed the training course for class 14 infant care teachers of this case submitted to the Defendant on February 11, 2009, includes E’s name. The training period is from March 14, 2008 to December 30, 2008.

③ On March 19, 2013, E was investigated as a witness in relation to the suspected case, such as obstruction of the performance of official duties by deceptive means against F, etc. In the course of the investigation, E stated that in the process of the investigation, F did not actually undergo all kinds of education, such as practical training, etc., and illegally obtained a three-class infant care teacher license, and that F gave F KRW 3,00,000 as its acquisition cost.

④ From February 4, 2013, E served as the above infant care teacher at G Child Care Center run by F after approximately one month.

⑤ On April 12, 2013, E was examined on the ground of the suspicion of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means against himself. During the interrogation process, E demanded F to pay the above money to F police officer in cash in early 2008 when it did not complete the training course for infant care teachers and obtained the third class certificate of infant care teacher. At around 2009, E stated that F had obtained the third class certificate of infant care teacher.

6. In addition, E stated that F would take part in cyber education at H University to acquire infant care teachers, but it did not actually take part in it, and that F would not cause education to the Kim Jong-hae who had resided in Seoul while living in Seoul.

7) On the other hand, E’s name is indicated in the attendance book of the instant education center for each subject in 2008. The Plaintiff stated that E received a completion certificate at the end of the week at the time of the Defendant’s business trip investigation on May 30, 2013, but the Plaintiff stated that E was present during the week and received education due to the above injury.

(8) On June 3, 2013 and June 17, 2013, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to submit to the Plaintiff a letter of objection to the change of the student list related to E and evidential documents, such as the attendance book, the place of examination, the place of practice, etc. However, the Plaintiff failed to submit materials corresponding thereto.

(9) On October 24, 2013, the Plaintiff was found to have issued a false completion certificate even if the Plaintiff did not complete the hearing procedure held by the Defendant prior to the instant disposition and did not meet the standard for recognition of completion of education due to the Plaintiff’s failure to complete the permitted curriculum for students E in 2008.

2) Determination on the assertion of deviation or abuse of discretionary power

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed according to the above facts, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be excessively harsh than the public interest to be achieved by the disposition of this case, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

① During the investigation process, E consistently stated that the instant education center did not receive the training course for infant care teachers, and that F paid KRW 3,000,000 to F, and illegally acquired the certificate of class 3 of infant care teachers. Although E’s residence is Seoul, the E’s statement seems to be reliance on the fact that the E’s receiving the training course is very unusual in that it would be considerably unusual.

② However, the Plaintiff entered the name of E in the attendance book of each subject in 2008 of the instant education center, and recorded as if the Plaintiff actually completed the education course. In addition, on December 30, 2008, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of completion to E, and entered the name of E in the list of class 3 persons who completed the training course for class 14 nursery teachers in the instant education center. In light of this process, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff issued a certificate of completion to E merely due to the mere loss.

(3) The purpose of the Infant Care Act is to contribute to the promotion of home welfare by fostering infants as healthy members of society through the protection and sound education of their mind and body, and by facilitating their guardians’ economic and social activities. Accordingly, the Infant Care Act imposes on the State and local governments the responsibility of taking care of infants in a sound manner along with their guardians to assist them in personnel expenses, etc. of infant care teachers, and imposes on them the responsibility of managing and supervising high-quality infant care by setting the qualification criteria for infant care teachers.

④ Infant care teachers discharged from the instant education center seems to have up to approximately 200 persons annually. Infant care teachers are not only responsible for the safe and healthy life of infants on behalf of the parents of infants, but also play a very important role in creating the sound character of infants and developing knowledge and skills. However, since the damages caused by infant care teachers discharged through the operation of defective education courses and illegal and illegal methods return to the infants and children are returned to the infants, from this point of view, there is a greater need for public interest to strengthen sanctions against infant care teachers discharged by illegal and illegal means prior to the likelihood of receiving infant care teachers.

⑤ In addition, according to the evidence evidence No. 17, since the fact that the person who obtained the certificate of an infant care teacher as of September 30, 2013 is merely 27.6% of the incumbent and incumbent employee care teachers, it does not seem that the designation of the education center of this case is considerably difficult to receive infant care teachers by revoking the designation of the education center of this case. Furthermore, the defendant guarantees the right of the person subject to education who is undertaking the curriculum at the education center of this case while holding the date of deferment of the disposition in this case, while taking the date of deferment of the disposition in this case, the supply

(6) On the other hand, it is difficult to detect the false issuance of the certificate of infant care teachers as in this case, and there is a practical limit in the management and supervision of the State or local governments. In light of the public nature and importance of the functions performed by infant care facilities in our society, there is a need to strictly manage and supervise illegal acts in violation of the purpose of the Infant Care Act. Considering the reality that such detection difficulties and the quality of infant care teachers become social issues related to the quality of infant care teachers, there is a need to take strict measures from a general preventive perspective.

(7) Infant care shall be given top priority to the interests of infants, and it shall be deemed that the idea of infant care is the top priority to infant care to ensure the infants grow healthy in a safe and pleasant environment. The responsibility to care for infants in a sound manner shall be borne by all citizens, not only by the parents of infants but also by all citizens. In light of the public needs for infant care to be provided by infant care teachers who cultivate expertise and morality according to lawful and lawful curriculum, the disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff due to the instant disposition does not seem to be too harsh.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge, Gimhae

Judges Lee Jae-hwan

Judges Kim Gin-young

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.