(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.12.5.선고 2013구합1151 판결

1. Revocation of recognition of the process of the so-called so-called “operator” on March 8, 2013 against the Plaintiffs on March 8, 2013, and revocation of the restriction on entrustment and recognition of the relevant process for one year.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant.

4. The disposition described in paragraph 1 shall cease to be effective until the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive.

Purport of claim

Disposition Nos. 1 and the Defendant’s revocation of recognition of the process of on-site training for the so-called so-called “on-site training” against the Plaintiffs on March 8, 2013, and revocation of suspension of qualification for vocational skills development training teachers (class 3 of mid-term driving) assigned to Plaintiff B for one year.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs jointly operate D Teaching Institutes in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter referred to as the "facilities of this case"). The facilities of this case are operated by the Minister of Employment and Labor as a training course for the development of vocational skills of the unemployed, etc. in accordance with the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers after obtaining recognition of a training course for the development of workplace skills of the unemployed, etc., and the "on-site practice course". The plaintiff B is also a training teacher in charge of

B. On January 11, 2013, the Defendant’s report on the instant facilities conducted guidance and inspection on the instant facilities on January 11, 2013, and as a result, the instant facilities led trainees who wish to obtain the driver’s license to acquire the driver’s license of the instant facilities to acquire the driver’s license when they are registered in the course of cutting-out training, and was actually engaged in driving education in addition to the driver’s license in the course of cutting-out on-site practice, and was investigated to have the driver’s license of the instant facilities do so regardless of the details of training.

C. Accordingly, on March 7, 2013, on the ground that the Defendant conducted workplace skill development training in violation of the training contents recognized to the extent that the instant facilities violated the purpose of training, the Defendant issued recognition of the occupational ability development training in accordance with Article 19(2)5 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers and Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act 2. 5(a) of the same Act, and issued suspension of qualifications for each of the above types of occupational ability development training in accordance with each of the above items of subparagraph 3(a) of Article 35(1) of the same Act and Article 6-3(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as “Class 3(a) of the same Act, on the ground that the instant facilities violated the purpose of training, and the suspension of qualifications for each of the above classes of occupational ability development training in accordance with each of the above items of subparagraph 3(a) of Article 35(1) of the same Act.

2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

A) It is true that the plaintiffs provided driving education free of charge for free by using waiting time for trainees who take part in the field practice course of the cirrative search season. However, it is not true that the plaintiffs had induced trainees to do so when they are registered in the field practice course of the cirrative search technician and the cirral search season, and the above cirr driving education was conducted in addition to the waiting time for enhancing the employment rate of trainees. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs violated the training contents recognized to the extent that they would violate the training purpose.

B) One time has been limited to the plaintiffs, among the curriculum of the sowing machine driving technicians, to o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'clock o'

(ii) the deviation and abuse of discretionary power;

In light of the fact that the plaintiffs' implementation of driving education for the plaintiffs, rather than contributing to the promotion of the employment of trainees, there are aspects that correspond to the public interest by contributing to the promotion of the training of trainees, that the for-run driving education was conducted during the waiting time of trainees, that it is only one time, and the degree of the plaintiffs' violation is extremely insignificant, and that there is no private teaching institute that opened the for-time driving training course except the facilities in this case at the time of Kimpo-si, and that if the for-time driving training course is revoked in the facilities in this case, it would cause serious inconvenience to the trainees located in Kimpo-si, and that the plaintiffs suffer serious accidents in their livelihood due to each of the dispositions in this case, each of the dispositions in this case in this case

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Comprehensively taking into account whether the plaintiffs violated the training purpose and the purport of the whole arguments as to whether the training contents approved to the extent that they would be in violation of the training purpose is stated in the evidence Nos. 2 through 6, and witness E’s testimony, the facility of this case is intended to allow the people who seek the education to obtain the qualification certificate if they attend the course of the extraction training, and recruit trainees. On the other hand, on the one hand, on the other, on the other, on the 20th of the theoretical education, 80 hours for the practical training (on the other hand, 6 hours for the practical training per day) for the purpose of acquiring the qualification certificate of the driving technician, 20 hours for the 1st of the extraction training, 130 hours for the practical training, 130 hours for the practical training for the 2nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the training.

In addition, the following circumstances shown in the records and pleadings of this case, namely, the training hours for vocational skills development are determined to be necessary to achieve the purpose of the relevant course, and therefore, the training hours determined for the smooth achievement of the purpose of each course and the quality level of the training are to be observed. ② In the case of the on-site training course, the waiting time which does not directly operate the cater is also part of the training hours. Therefore, as long as the driving training is conducted during that time, it is difficult to view that the training hours for the on-site training of the cater is normally observed. ③ In addition, in light of the above circumstances, the possibility that the training hours for the cater and the on-site driving training was conducted by one instructor, and thus, the possibility that the chering driving education would be hindered due to the on-site training of the ciring machine cannot be ruled out.

In addition, it would be the case of violating the training contents recognized to the extent that it would violate the training purpose and would violate the training purpose.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted.

2) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused

A) In full view of the following circumstances as revealed in the case records and arguments, ① Workplace skill development training is operated with limited public resources, such as the State budget and the Employment Insurance Fund under the Employment Insurance Act, and there is a substantial public interest to promote the employment stability of workers and the enhancement of corporate productivity. ② In particular, even though the training hours should be strictly observed to achieve the smooth purpose of workplace skill development training, the Plaintiffs were concurrently engaged in the on-site training, but it is difficult to deem that the degree of violation is less severe, such as continuing such activities over the entire training courses, and ③ each of the above dispositions was conducted in accordance with the administrative disposition standards stipulated in the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers. In full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that each of the above dispositions was abused or abused the scope of discretionary power even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiffs.

B) Determination as to the disposition on the process of operating technicians of the instant excavation machines

The facts that the plaintiffs used training hours in the course of the so-called driver training skills are as seen earlier. However, in full view of the fact that the above ceremony was conducted with the consent of the majority of trainees for the purpose of boosting the morale of trainees and strengthening the training hours, the training hours used in the ceremony were only three hours out of the total training hours of 200 hours. According to the witness E’s testimony, the instructors of the instant facilities seems to have been giving non-official supplementary lessons from time to time for the training of trainees, and Article 6-3 [Attachment 1-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers established the criteria for administrative disposition, if there is no intentional or gross negligence, or if the degree of violation is minor, the measures can be mitigated within the scope of 1/2 (in case of revocation) of the criteria set in the individual criteria (the proviso to paragraph (1) 1). Thus, the above disposition of abuse of discretion by the plaintiffs is more unfair than that of the plaintiffs.

3. According to the records of this case, the suspension of validity is recognized as an urgent need to prevent irrecoverable damage to the plaintiffs due to the validity of the disposition on the process of the operator of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations of the operations

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.