2012. Revocation of disposition, etc. of refund of vocational ability development training fees

A Stock Company

The President of the Gwangju Regional Labor Agency

December 12, 2013

December 26, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The Defendant’s disposition of restricting payment from January 18, 2008 to August 20, 2009 against the Plaintiff on December 20, 2010 and disposition of returning KRW 271,957,783 to the Plaintiff respectively is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff obtained recognition of each of the following training courses from the Defendant as a training course for the development of occupational abilities, and conducted the above training course.

[Training Courses]

A person shall be appointed.

B. The defendant confirmed that the plaintiff's employees who fall under the following training column were unable to depart from Korea during the training period and participate in the above training course, but the plaintiff was present, processed and completed the training course, and the defendant received training expenses equivalent to the amount of the following training expenses from the defendant.

A person shall be appointed.

C. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 35(1) and (2) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and Article 56(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21015, Sep. 18, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree”), the Defendant issued a disposition to refund training expenses for the vocational skills development of business owners to KRW 370,287; additionally collect additional collection of KRW 1,481,148, the amount of the unlawful receipt; and the amount of training expenses paid from January 18, 2008 to August 20, 2009.

D. On December 13, 201, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against it, and received a ruling to revoke the disposition of additional collection of KRW 1,481,148 from the Central Administrative Appeals Committee members to additionally collect KRW 1,48.

E. From January 18, 2008 to August 20, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of restricting payment and the disposition of returning KRW 271,957,783 of the training expenses paid during the period of restricting payment (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

If an administrative disposition is revoked ex officio, the disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 200).

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 6, the Constitutional Court rendered the above constitutional decision on August 29, 2013 on the ground that Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act violates the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation under Article 75 of the Constitution (2011Hun-Ba390). Accordingly, the defendant revoked the disposition of this case against the plaintiff on October 15, 2013 ex officio.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit, as it is against the nonexistent disposition.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act shall apply to the burden of litigation costs as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Kim Jae-young

Judges Hong Young-jin

Judges Park Young-young

A person shall be appointed.