Revocation, such as an order to return illegally received amount, etc. 2019Nu3946

1. A stock company;

2. B stock company:

3. C Stock Company:

4. E company.

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant]

1. The Administrator of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office;

2. The Administrator of the Seoul Southern District Office of Employment and Labor;

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Gudan78905 decided February 20, 2019

July 26, 2019

September 6, 2019

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed. 2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The disposition that the Defendants rendered against the relevant Plaintiffs is revoked as shown in the [Attachment 1] List of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The contents asserted by the plaintiffs in the trial of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiffs in the trial of first instance, and even if all the evidence submitted in the trial and the trial of first instance are examined, the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected such claims by the plaintiffs is justifiable. The reasons for the court's judgment on this case are as follows, since the reasons for the judgment of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part which was written after dismissal as follows, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (However, since the part concerning joint plaintiffs in the first instance court was separated and confirmed as above, it is excluded from the corresponding part, and therefore, the "Plaintiffs" in the second and seventh joint plaintiffs in the first instance court of second instance as well as D Co., Ltd. in the first instance as well as the remaining "Plaintiffs" in the first instance court and the first instance court of first instance as "Co-Plaintiff D in the first instance."

○○ 4th of the first instance judgment, 13th of the 13th of the 13th of the 195 decision, "do to the defendant".

The 14th, the 16th, the 16th, the 16th and the 16th and the 16th, the 14th, the 17th and the 19th, the 14th, the 14th and the 16th, the 14th and the 16th and the 16th, respectively.

○○ Decision 7 pages 7 of the first instance judgment 3) 2 '189, 224(A)' are '189, 224(A). 'Defendant side' of the first instance judgment '16 '3 '4 9 , 13 , and 16 , respectively' is her side of the Seoul Northern District Office.

○○ The 9th judgment of the first instance court, 4th 6th 6th 8th 9th 6th 8th 9th 6th 6th 6th 8th 8th 9th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 200.

○ 12 pages 11 to 12 of the judgment of the first instance court, "the defendant" is regarded as "the defendant".

The order to return KRW 26,487,280 among the 4th column of the 5th attached Table of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: ① order to return KRW 26,487,280, ② order to return KRW 19,526,080, ② order to additionally collect KRW 19,526,080, ② order to additionally collect KRW 19,526,080 in the attached Table of the judgment of first instance. ② Order to additionally collect KRW 4,56,080 in the attached Table of the judgment of first instance is the 15th, 6,7th, 14th, 14th, 14th, 20, 26th 16th 16th 16th 20 of the judgment of first instance.

○○ From among the terms and conditions of the consignment agreement with the Plaintiff’s “C” in the attached table of the first instance judgment, the date of concluding the consignment agreement with the Plaintiff’s “C” (as of June 19, 2014, the date of June 28, 2014, the date of concluding the agreement (as of June 15, 15 of the judgment of the first instance), is 135” of the number of trainees (as of June 15, 15 of the judgment of the first instance), 2 is 158, respectively. Of the terms and conditions of the consignment agreement with the Plaintiff’s “E” in the attached table of the judgment of the first instance court of the first instance, the number of trainees (as of the attached table of the judgment of the first instance is 204, the number of trainees in the attached table of the 16th level of the judgment of the first instance) is 200. [Additional part]

A. Determination on the illegality of the full return disposition of subsidies

The plaintiffs asserted to the purport that the redemption disposition of the whole amount of the funds received by the plaintiffs is unlawful, considering the whole amount of the funds received by the plaintiffs as an illegal amount, although some of the trainees in this case implemented the training courses faithfully, but it is practically difficult to identify such trainees.

However, there is no evidence to deem that some of the trainees of this case fulfilled the training course properly and completed the training course, and as seen earlier, the training of this case was conducted by H’s employees by means of postal remote training in which H’s employees created a ID of the trainee under the direction of H’s representative I, etc., and the Plaintiffs did not perform the duty of confirmation as to whether they meet the standards for completion of their employees. In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the training of this case was conducted by such unlawful means as the whole for all trainees. The Plaintiffs’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

B. Determination of the illegality of the disposition imposing additional collection and restricting subsidies and loans

The plaintiffs believe that the plaintiffs were to conduct faithful education and training by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, which is an educational institution authorized by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and that they were victims using the act of acquiring the training expenses for H side, and that the occurrence of this case was negligent by the Ministry of Employment and Labor or the Industrial Manpower Management Corporation, which is a supervisory institution which granted the authorization for the remote training at H and did not properly manage and supervise it, but it was against the principle of proportionality that the defendants' act of additionally collecting and restricting the amount of illegal receipt in addition to the return of the amount of illegal receipt to the plaintiffs of transportation business chain is illegal and unfair.

However, the plaintiffs did not confirm whether the education and training was conducted normally for the trainees of this case, such as the progress of the training in this case, whether the training meets the standards for completion. As seen earlier, it is difficult for the plaintiffs to regard them as simple victims of frauds by I, J, K, etc. In light of the fact that the subject of obligation to conduct vocational skills development training under the Vocational Skills Development Act and the subject of obligation to conduct vocational skills development training under the Vocational Skills Development Act are the plaintiffs who are employers, and even if there were some negligence on the part of the Ministry of Employment and Labor or the Ministry of Industry and Labor for failure to properly manage and supervise H, it cannot be deemed that the measures to additionally collect the amount of unfair receipt and to restrict the provision of subsidies and loans are too harsh.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs in this case shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the Korea Judge Judge;

Judges Dokwon Line

Judges Sung-ju

1) In the first instance court, D Co., Ltd. also filed a lawsuit with the plaintiffs, which is the same as the plaintiffs.

The portion as to the joint plaintiff D Co., Ltd. in the first instance court was dismissed. The portion as to the joint plaintiff D is not appealed by both parties.

Li and finalized.