1. The Defendant’s disposition of returning KRW 31,615,920 to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2017 and the amount equivalent to the same amount.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, who operates a hospital B (hereinafter “instant hospital”), concluded an entrustment contract with C (hereinafter “instant company”) that conducts workplace skill development training for workers pursuant to Article 24(1) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development”) and had the instant company conduct workplace skill development training for the employees of the Plaintiff (or the instant hospital; hereinafter the same shall apply) since that time.

B. However, the instant company paid KRW 40,412,235, in total, off eight times the training center substitute fee for the workshop of Plaintiff employees, bus stop expenses, food expenses, and other offline education support expenses for the Plaintiff’s employees, under the pretext of providing additional services following the conclusion of the consignment contract with the Plaintiff.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant considers that part of the costs of workplace skill development training paid by the instant company on behalf of the Plaintiff is substantially returned to the instant hospital. The act of paying costs by the instant company constitutes “where a person who has obtained recognition of workplace skill development training courses has received subsidies or loans by a business owner’s organization, etc. who has entrusted workplace skill development training by fraud or other improper means” under the premise that Article 24(2)4 of the Vocational Skills Development Act constitutes “the act of receiving subsidies or loans for training expenses by a business owner’s organization, etc. who has entrusted workplace skill development training courses,” and on June 30, 2017, Articles 55(2) and 56(2) and (3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Articles 22-2 and 22-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act, and Articles 22-2 and 22-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act.”

The defendant is out of the difference between the State-funded amount and the training fee deposited by the plaintiff in the company of this case.