1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance shall be added to the following 2. paragraphs, citing the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act:

2. (i) Even if a civil or administrative judgment is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the fact that a criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence. Therefore, barring any special circumstance where it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil or administrative trial, it cannot be acknowledged that the facts opposed thereto are not acceptable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du28240 Decided May 24, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du28240, Sept. 20, 2018). D’s representative E was sentenced to the dismissal of an appeal on September 21, 2018, and appealed on September 21, 2018 (Supreme Court Decision 2018Do16257). However, the final appeal was dismissed on November 23, 2018 and the judgment of conviction against E became final and conclusive. Therefore, there is no evidence to deem that there is any special circumstance that it is difficult to adopt

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s disposition of restitution of the entire subsidy received by the Plaintiff is unlawful, considering the entire subsidy amount as an illegal receipt, since some of the instant trainees satisfied the completion standards by properly implementing the training courses.

However, there is no evidence to deem that some of the trainees of this case met the completion standards by properly implementing the training courses.

Rather, the instant training was conducted by means of remote training, and was conducted by means of creating a ID of the instant trainees according to the direction of D’s representative E, etc., and the Plaintiff did not perform its duty to verify whether the instant trainees meet the completion standards.