(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.5.13. 선고 2014누22663 판결

The Defendant’s revocation of recognition and six months (from December 6, 2013 to June 5, 2014) before the Plaintiff on December 5, 2013, revoked the Plaintiff’s imposition of a fine for negligence of KRW 5,220,00, and the imposition of a fine for negligence of KRW 5,220,000, and the imposition of a fine for negligence of KRW 500,00,00, both are revoked (excluding the Plaintiff’s claim against each of the above paragraphs, ② the court of first instance dismissed the above paragraphs (1), ② the part to be dismissed, and the part to be rejected, and the Plaintiff did not appeal against the foregoing).

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance (the above three and four paragraphs) shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where " December 5, 2012" in Section 5 of Section 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance as " December 5, 2013," and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff conducted training without receiving tuition fees for those who are difficult to be circumstances, and then refunded training fees paid to the defendant by the trainee. In the process, the plaintiff applied for subsidies on behalf of the trainee, and the trainee is not the plaintiff, so the defendant's third disposition is illegal because it is against a person who has no legal obligation to pay training fees.

3. The legality of a third-party disposition.

In accordance with Article 56 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, the defendant ordered the plaintiff to take training without receiving training expenses from the trainee, and ordered the defendant to apply for training expenses by fraudulent means such as preparing a false receipt on behalf of the trainee, and accordingly if the trainee receives the subsidy, the defendant violated Article 19 of the Vocational Skills Development Act by receiving the above subsidy from the trainee as they are, and thus, violated Article 3 of the Vocational Skills Development Act. The defendant ordered the plaintiff to additionally collect the amount equivalent to the refund of the training expenses that the trainee received from the defendant and the additional collection of the amount equivalent to the same amount.

A. Relevant legal principles

Administrative laws and regulations that serve as the basis for sanctions shall be strictly interpreted and applied, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted to the disadvantage of the party against whom the disposition is imposed. Even if the teleological interpretation that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose, etc. is not entirely excluded, such interpretation shall not deviate from the ordinary meaning of the text and text (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du13791, 13807, Feb. 28, 2008).

Article 56 (2) 1 and (3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that "the Minister of Employment and Labor may order a person whose recognition has been revoked pursuant to Article 19 (2) of the same Act, or a worker whose recognition has been restricted pursuant to Article 55 (2) to return the amount of subsidies or loans received in a false or other unlawful manner among the amount already provided or loaned pursuant to Article 55 (2)" (Article 56 (2) of the same Act provides that "the State, a local government, or the Minister of Employment and Labor may additionally collect a certain amount of subsidies or loans in accordance with the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor for the amount of subsidies or loans received in a false or other unlawful manner" (Article 19 (2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that "Where the Minister of Employment and Labor intends to obtain subsidies or loans for training expenses from workers attending workplace skill development training by fraud or other improper means (Article 19 (2) of the same Act)."

B. Specific determination

In full view of the above provisions of the Vocational Skills Development Act, the repayment and additional collection under Article 56 of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills are construed as a measure to recover the benefit acquired from the training institution or the employee who received subsidies or loans by fraud or other improper means, or to additionally collect the amount equivalent to the amount. In other words, in order for the Plaintiff to return the illegally received benefit and to additionally collect the amount from the same business operator, ① recognition is revoked, ② the amount already provided or loaned should be required.

However, in this case, the Plaintiff only applied for the payment of subsidies to improve the worker's ability on behalf of the Defendant, and the subject who received training expenses directly from the Defendant is not the Plaintiff but the trainee of this case. Although the training expenses paid to the trainee of this case, as alleged by the Defendant, are substantially reverted to the Plaintiff, administrative laws and regulations that serve as the basis of the disciplinary measure should be strictly interpreted and applied as seen earlier, and thus, Article 3 disposition against the Plaintiff, who is not the subject to which the training expenses belong, is illegal.

Therefore, the third measure should be revoked because it is illegal without any need to further examine whether or not it deviates from or abused discretionary power.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is without merit.

Judges

The presiding judge, judges and grandchildren;

Judges and worships

Judges Anti-Jin-dong

Note tin

1) On the notice of administrative disposition (Evidence 1) sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the third page of the judgment of the first instance on the ground of the disposition No. 3

Although Article 56 (1) and (3) of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills and Article 22-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act are referred to as "vocational Ability Development Act", vocational ability development.

Article 56 (1) of the Act is a provision concerning the return of subsidies, etc. received by a business operator when an entrustment contract is terminated.

In light of the background of each disposition of this case, the details of the violation alleged by the Defendant while rendering the third disposition to the Plaintiff, and the details of the disposition

In view of the above, it is reasonable to see Article 56 (1) of the Vocational Skills Development Act as a clerical error in Article 56 (2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act.