The obligation to repay overseas dispatch technical training expenses and the relationship with Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act

If an employee is obliged to lend and repay overseas temporary agency training expenses to a worker for the acquisition of technology, and the employer works for the agreed period of time with the repayment method, the obligation to repay shall be exempted, and if not, the agreement to repay all or part of the training expenses shall not be deemed to constitute a violation prohibited under Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act.

Attorney Go Jae-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and eight others

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na1983 delivered on November 17, 1972

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim of this case with the following stated reasons. In other words, since vocational training expenses in the business under Article 12 subparagraph 3 of the Vocational Training Act (amended by Act No. 1880 of Jan. 16, 1967, Act No. 2606 of Mar. 13, 197) shall be borne by the person who conducted the training, the expenses shall be borne by the employer when the employer conducts the training for acquiring the technology. Therefore, even if the agreement was concluded between the parties to the agreement that the employer who conducted the training should lend the training to the person who received the training and seek the reimbursement of the training expenses, it shall be null and void in violation of the above provision.

Therefore, even if the above assertion by the plaintiff's attorney in this case is true, the above agreement between the plaintiff company, defendant 1, 4, and defendant 8 and the non-party is a labor contract with the purport that the plaintiff's technical training costs are lent to the above defendant 1, and the plaintiff conducts technical training for his members, and the plaintiff bears the duty to work for each contract period of not less than one year, which is against Article 21 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, as stated in the attached Table (2), which is for a period of not less than one year which is against Article 21 of the Labor Standards Act, and if he works for the above contract period, the above loan obligation shall be exempted and if he is not so, the above loan obligation shall be repaid to the plaintiff 1, and if he does not work for the above contract period, the repayment of the above training costs should be made in violation of Article 12 (3) of the above vocational Training Act, and therefore, the above agreement is invalid, regardless of the above agreement, and thus, the plaintiff's failure to pay the above training expenses should be deemed as an invalid compensation for the above agreement.

2. The above purport of the judgment below is that the training expenses that an employer provides to a worker with skills shall be borne by the employer in accordance with Article 12 subparagraph 3 of the above Vocational Training Act, so the agreement that the employer lends the training expenses to the worker receiving the training and seeks reimbursement thereof is null and void, and the employer bears the duty to work for a period of not less than one year prescribed in Article 21 of the Labor Standards Act with the repayment method of the training expenses not obligated to pay, and if the worker fails to work during the contract period, the repayment of the training expenses shall be made in accordance with the contract period of not less than one year as stipulated in Article 21 of the Labor Standards Act, which goes against Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act, while the employer bears the burden of the worker receiving the technical training

However, since the Vocational Training Act (Act No. 1880) enacted January 16, 1967, which was cited by the judgment of the court below, was enacted on the ground that the contract for the overseas technical training of the plaintiff's assertion was concluded on August 25, 196 through 26, the transfer of the contract, and there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, the Employment Training Act cannot be applied to the overseas technical training contract of this case prior to its implementation, and it cannot be said that the above overseas technical training is a vocational training under Article 12 subparagraph 3 of the same Act, in particular, or an authorized vocational training under Article 12 subparagraph 3 of the same Act, and it cannot be said that the same Act is applied to the overseas temporary training of this case immediately without considering whether it is an in-house vocational training or an authorized vocational training under Article 12 subparagraph 3 of the same Act. Accordingly, the above violation, which is a Daejeon agenda of the reasoning of the judgment below, cannot be perceived as a kind of the Labor Standards Act that the above violation is obligated to reimburse the plaintiff company for the agreed period.

4. As explained above, the judgment of the court below is deemed to have committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the Vocational Training Act and the Labor Standards Act, and since this illegality has influenced the result of the judgment, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)