logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.09.21 2017누60125
인정취소 및 인정제한처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The court below's decision that the plaintiff's claim in the trial is justified in its reasoning, and all evidence submitted in the court of first instance is examined, and even if the plaintiff paid expenses on behalf of each business owner, unless there is any evidence that the plaintiff's work site, offline education, and overseas training for the officers and employees subject to the use of such expenses are part of the vocational ability development training course to be conducted by each business owner, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received training expenses from the State by fraud or other improper means through the payment of expenses, unless there is any evidence that the plaintiff's original work site, offline education, and overseas training for the employees subject to the use of such expenses are part of the vocational ability development training course to be conducted by each business owner. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified in its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as the defendant's appeal is

arrow