(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.8.26. 선고 2015구합80437 판결

The Defendant’s disposition to suspend the certification of workplace skill development training institutions in November 11, 2015, which was conducted by the Plaintiff on November 11, 2015, is revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

The Defendant designated the Defendant’s Intervenor as an evaluation agency for vocational skills development training institutions in 2015.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant, on November 11, 2015, conducted the certification evaluation of vocational skills development training institutions for the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant evaluation”), and the Defendant rendered a disposition suspending the certification on the basis of the following evaluation results (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

The Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers is as shown in the attached Form (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers").

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to Article 53 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 8 of the Regulations on the Evaluation of Vocational Skills Development Training Institutions (Rules No. 86 of the Ministry of Employment and Labor), an evaluation committee member should not be a person who has interests, such as himself/herself, who is or is in office in workplace skill development training facilities, and shall be a person who holds a doctor’s degree in the relevant field, and a person who holds a doctor’s degree in the relevant field shall complete the curriculum supervised by the evaluation agency

According to the results of Eul evidence Nos. 13 (including additional numbers) and this Court’s reading and examination, the Korea Technology Education University’s Vocational Skills Review Board, which is an evaluation agency of the defendant, has selected three members of the Evaluation Committee of this case. ② All three members appointed as evaluation members, including himself, are not a person who operates or is in office for workplace skill development training facilities, have evaluation experience in relation to distance training, etc. before the evaluation of this case, have attended and completed the curriculum on the evaluation criteria and methods, and have submitted a written pledge to the effect that they will fairly evaluate workplace skill development.

According to the above facts of recognition, an evaluation committee member was selected as prescribed by the relevant regulations, such as qualifications, methods of selection, and completion of education. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is unlawful due to defects in qualifications, methods of selection, completion of education, and whether a distance training expert is an evaluation committee member.

(b) Evaluation methods;

The plaintiff asserts that on-site evaluation of the defendant joining the defendant and the deliberation process on the plaintiff's objection were very formal.

However, in addition to the contents of evidence Nos. 3 and 15 of the evidence Nos. 15, the Defendant announced the plan for the certification evaluation of vocational skills development training institutions for one to three hours on February 12, 2015 with the purport that three distance training experts will conduct field evaluation for one-third hours, ② three evaluation members conducted the written evaluation based on the self-evaluation report submitted by the Plaintiff before visiting the Plaintiff, and conducted the evaluation by visiting the Plaintiff company from August 10, 2015 to 16:15:00 on August 10, 2015, and explained the results of the evaluation at the attendance of the representative director at the Plaintiff’s meeting after about one hour and 28 minutes after the commencement of the evaluation; ③ The evaluation members offered to the evaluation members by the Defendant are stated in the evaluation guidelines, the list of evidentiary materials, the evaluation points, the evaluation guidelines, the detailed evaluation guidelines, etc., and the Plaintiff’s objection may be deliberated by the external expert evaluation committee composed of 160/15 of the Plaintiff’s objection.

In light of the above evaluation methods, the time and result of the evaluation as well as the deliberation on objections through the committee for deliberation on objections, etc., it is difficult to view that the on-site evaluation of the Intervenor joining the Defendant and the deliberation process on the Plaintiff’s objection have been conducted formally, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) Items of the training course development;

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s Intervenor did not properly evaluate 15 points despite its own 3 training courses developed during the evaluation period. However, according to the result of inspection and examination by the court, ① development of training courses is 15 points in total; ② evaluation points are 0.5 points if it is extremely insufficient; 1.5 points if it is ordinarily insufficient; 2 points if it is very excellent; 2 points if it is high; 3 points if it is necessary to analyze the demand for the development of training courses (2 points); 1.5 points if it is high; 2 points if it is high; 3 points if it is necessary to evaluate the fact that it is necessary to develop the training courses (2 points); 5 points if it is necessary to systematically plan the development of the training courses (2 points); 5 points if it is necessary to determine whether it is adequate to manage the training courses (2 points); 5 points if it is below 20 points; 5 points if it is necessary to determine whether it is adequate to manage the training courses (2 points).

According to the above facts, the evaluation of the items for the development of training courses shall be conducted by comprehensively taking into account not only the development of the training course, but also various items concerning the development procedures and management of the training course. Although the Plaintiff is making an investment and effort for the development of the training course, the Plaintiff received an excellent evaluation as to whether it is making an investment and effort for the development of the training course, and received 7 points out of the 15th full scores. The Plaintiff’s evaluation of the remaining items alone is insufficient to deem that the evaluation by the evaluation committee considerably lost its rationality, and there

2) Operational items of the training course

The plaintiff notified students through text messages, encourage students to attend a school, check whether they have completed the course after completion of the education, and determined whether they have completed the education course in order to improve and manage the training course after completion of the education course. The plaintiff asserts that he/she operated the training course efficiently and faithfully, such as conducting surveys.

However, according to the result of this court’s perusal and examination, ① 15 points in total are allocated to the evaluation committee members, ② whether the evaluation committee is equipped with an appropriate training course operation system (second point), ② whether the training courses are prepared to establish a training course systematically before the training operation (second point), whether the trainees during the training operation are informed of the information related to the training course (second point) (second point) and whether the training courses are actively promoted, such as encouraging the trainees to participate in the training during the training operation (second point), whether the training courses are completed faithfully after the training operation (second point), ③ whether the training courses are completed (second point), ③ whether the Plaintiff is equipped with an appropriate training course operation system from the evaluation committee members (five point point) and ③ whether the Plaintiff has been systematically prepared for the training course before the training operation (one point), +15 points in total for the training operation (one point in total) and one point in total for the training operation (one point in total).

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff was evaluated as lacking in the systematic manual for the operation of instructors, and received all the relevant tasks. In light of the evaluation item of the training course, the assessment of the operation of the training course should focus on whether the Plaintiff has a system to effectively operate the training course so that students can learn the contents of the course and complete the training course well. In light of the evaluation item of the training course, it does not appear that the Plaintiff’s method of completing the training course through text messages or survey, etc. does not necessarily mean that the Plaintiff’s method of managing students through text messages or completing the training course does not appear to have any special high points in the operation item of the training course, and it is difficult to find any other circumstance to deem that the evaluation of the Plaintiff lacks rationality.

3) Items of improvement and management of training courses

The plaintiff asserts that since the smart learning system is built and a variety of training courses are introduced, the plaintiff can get a higher point in the improvement and management elements of training courses.

However, according to the result of this court’s perusal and examination, the following facts are revealed: ① 5 points in total for improvement and management of training courses are allocated to the public; ② whether the evaluation clause is equipped with an appropriate system for improvement of training courses (second point), and whether the training courses are systematically improved (if the number is extremely insufficient with three points, 0.75 points; 0.75 points if the number is insufficient; 1.5 points if the number is normal; 2.25 points if the number is very excellent; 3 points if the number is very excellent); ③ whether the Plaintiff has an appropriate system for improvement of training courses from the evaluation committee members, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff has received two general (one point) points (one point) (1+1) in total (1) as to whether the number of evaluation committee members are improving the training courses in a normal and systematic manner. The fact that the evaluation committee needs to specify the satisfaction opinion and it is deemed necessary to comprehensively manage various opinions is as seen earlier.

According to the above facts, the items to be improved and managed can be seen as evaluating whether to derive the improvement of the training course and improve them by analyzing the contents and results of the training operation. However, the Plaintiff was assessed as necessary to specify the satisfaction question from the evaluation committee members and undergoing an evaluation of the necessity of a variety of opinions integrated management, and there is no data to verify how the training course has been improved due to the construction of the smart learning system and the introduction of various training courses cited by the Plaintiff, and there is no other data to verify how the training course has been improved, and the said evaluation by the evaluation committee has considerably lost rationality.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary power is not accepted (the Plaintiff’s assertion that, in the case of other two enterprises in Gwangju Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff passed the instant disposition after obtaining a certification evaluation, even though it falls short of the objective evaluation criteria, such as falling short of the water supply of self-development training courses than the Plaintiff. However, as seen earlier, the determination of self-development of training courses is merely one of the elements subject to the certification evaluation, and the evaluation members’ evaluation of the Plaintiff is deemed to have exceeded and abused discretionary power, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise).

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges

The presiding judge, the Korean Judge;

Judges Kim Gin-young

Judges Sok-beon

Attached Form

A person shall be appointed.

참조조문

-근로자직업능력 개발법

-근로자직업능력 개발법 제53조

-근로자직업능력 개발법 시행령 제48조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016. 8. 30. 선고 2016누40957 판결

-서울행정법원 2017.03.30 2016구합64333

-청주지방법원 2015.03.26 2014구합11422

-대법원 2019. 1. 31. 선고 2016두52019 판결

-부산지방법원 2017.04.13 2015구합22906 (1)