(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.5.17.선고 2018구합11505 판결

The disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on August 11, 2016 to refund subsidies for illegal receipt of training costs, to additionally collect training costs, and to restrict loans for workplace skill development training shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B, from March 28, 2011 to November 18, 2013, operated the said childcare center as the representative of the D childcare center located in Scheon-si, and E, from November 18, 2013 to July 1, 2015, and the Plaintiff operated the said childcare center as the representative of the said childcare center from July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2015.

B. B, E, and the Plaintiff: (a) changed the representative of a childcare center as above, closed the existing business registration; and (b) changed the business registration number of a childcare center run by B (F), E (G) and H (H). As a result, both the business registration number of a childcare center run by the Plaintiff (H) are different. B, as the business owner of a childcare center, was paid subsidies of KRW 2,300,000, in total, from the Government Branch of the Central Labor Agency of the Central and Medium Labor Agency, for the reason that the workplace skill development training was conducted by entrusting the training to a workplace skill development training conducted by the lifelong education center from September 6, 2013 to November 16, 2013; and (b) E received subsidies of KRW 3,740,000,000 on the ground that the aforementioned training was conducted from November 22, 2013 to March 18, 2014.

D. On August 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) entrusted the training to the Lifelong Education Institute by a business owner of D childcare centers; (b) filed a false application for subsidies as if some trainees did not actually participate in the training; and (c) received subsidies for workplace skill development training expenses by unlawful means; and (d) issued a return of subsidies for training expenses for illegal supply and demand, additional collection, and restriction on loans (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Attachment]

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

D Child-care centers paid all training expenses subsidized by the Defendant to the Lifelong Education Center, which is the entrusting company, and thus, the above child-care centers did not gain any profit related to the training expenses, and the payment of training expenses by applying for subsidies by fraudulent or other unlawful means is not a D child-care center or the Plaintiff, and thus, the disposition

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the developments leading up to the above disposition, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the results of the fact-finding of the court's Macheon Tax Office and the purport of the whole pleadings, the other party to the disposition of this case is merely Eul and E, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's legal interest has been infringed due to the disposition of this case. Thus, the plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case.

A. The instant disposition is limited to D’s B and E, the business owner at the time of D’s home of children who received subsidies for vocational skills development training costs by fraud or other improper means pursuant to Articles 5(2) and 56(2) and (3) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, and is not against the Plaintiff.

B. Article 45-3 of the Infant Care Act provides that "When a person who establishes and operates a child-care center transfers the child-care center or dies, or when a corporation is merged, the effects of the administrative disposition imposed on the person who establishes and operates the child-care center shall be succeeded to the transferee, heir, or corporation newly established or surviving the merger for one year from the date of such administrative disposition, and where the procedures for administrative disposition are in progress, the procedures for administrative disposition may proceed against the transferee, heir, or corporation newly established or surviving the merger." Even if the plaintiff was transferred D child-care center from E, the succession of the effects of the administrative disposition following the transfer of the child-care center is limited to the cases of suspension of operation of the child-care center or the closure of the facility (the grounds for the disposition in this case are also governed by the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, and it is difficult to view that the disposition in this case is an object of the disposition in this case's legal interest as the object of the transfer of the child-care center, and thus, it cannot be viewed that it is against the plaintiff's legal interest.

D. Meanwhile, the restriction period (B: January 19, 2017; E: August 12, 2016; from August 12, 2016 to May 29, 2017) of the instant disposition already became invalid. The conclusion is that the restriction period has already expired.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.