2018Gudan50366 Requests to revoke revocation of designation as vocational training facilities

1. A;

2. B

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

[Defendant-Appellant]

The President of the Central Local Labor Agency

July 9, 2019

July 23, 2019

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

On February 28, 2018, the Defendant’s revocation of the designation of vocational training facilities for the Plaintiffs is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs have been operating the above school as a joint representative of the 'Cprofessional School'. The above school was designated as a vocational ability development training establishment on November 30, 2002 by Article 28 of the Workers' Vocational Skills Development Act, etc., and the change of designation was made by the defendant several times thereafter. The location of the above school is the 'Secheon-gu, Namcheon-gu D (Incheon-gu E).'

B. On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiffs temporarily changed the location of a site for outdoor practice to 100 meters away from 100 meters for a construction period (for three months) where a training facility of the third floor above the ground is extended on the site of an outdoor training site, and reported the change to the Defendant on May 22, 2015. On May 29, 2015, the Defendant changed the designation of a vocational training establishment on the ground of the change of the facility to the Plaintiffs on May 29, 2015.

C. On October 13, 2015, upon completion of the construction work for the extension of the above training establishment, the Plaintiffs again filed a report on the change of the vocational training establishment (hereinafter referred to as the “report of this case”) to the Defendant, and on October 20, 2015, the Defendant changed the designation of the vocational training establishment on the ground of the change of facilities with respect to the Plaintiffs.

D. On March 2017, the Defendant received and examined a civil petition that part of the first floor is being used for the purpose of unlawful use different from the public book, and confirmed that at the time of the instant report, “the first floor (parking lot)” is deleted from the building ledger among the documents submitted by the Plaintiffs at the time of the instant report, and the current building status (the first floor floor) is also indicated as “on-the-job training room without marking the parking zone line and the parking lot.”

E. On April 30, 2018, the Defendant accused the Plaintiff A and H (administrative staff of the first vocational school) on charges of altering official documents, uttering of altered official documents, and obstruction of the performance of justice by fraudulent means. On April 30, 2018, the Prosecutor of the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office issued a disposition of "the conduct of suspicion (defluence of evidence)" against Plaintiff A, and issued a disposition of "the suspension of indictment" against the alteration of official documents and the exercise of altered official documents, and "the conduct of obstruction of the performance of fraudulent means (defluence of evidence)" against Plaintiff A.

F. On February 28, 2018, on the ground that the Defendant was designated as a vocational training facility by illegal means against the Plaintiffs, the Defendant was not limited to the modified portion on the extension of the above vocational training facility, but issued a disposition to revoke the designation of the vocational training facility itself (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 12, 14, Eul evidence 1 to 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. If an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition becomes null and void and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu1931, Sept. 26, 1997; 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010);

B. In light of the overall purport of the arguments as to the instant case, the Defendant, on May 15, 2017, submitted to the Defendant a report of change to the effect that the Plaintiff would use the Plaintiff’s workplace skill development training facilities on September 8, 2017, as well as the written evidence Nos. 6 through 8, 13, and 14, the Defendant: (a) provided the Plaintiffs with equipment necessary for practical training in a building for the use of the parking lot; and (b) changed the use of the training site No. 1 (281.5m) designated as the designated occupational training establishment pursuant to the Building Management Act; (c) the Plaintiffs changed the use of the training site to the training site for automobile-related facilities; and (d) filed a report of change to the purport that the Plaintiff would use the training site as facilities on July 19, 2018; and (c) it is reasonable to deem the Plaintiffs’ request for change to the designation of the training site on July 19, 2018, for revocation of the designation of the above vocational training facility.

[Defendant asserted to the effect that, in order to respect the stay of execution (as of March 27, 2018) of this Court, the changed designation was made on July 18, 2018, and that the previous disposition of this case was not revoked or revoked because there is no defect in the previous disposition of this case. However, the above assertion does not contain the same purport in the changed designation (Notification) dated 19, 2019, and it is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, but it is in accordance with Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition by allowing the defendant to bear the costs of lawsuit.

Judge Meritorious decoration

1) The defendant's change of location" and change of workplace skill development training facilities under the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers [Form No. 6]

On the ground of the use of the "application for designation" form, it is alleged that the application for designation of change is not the report of change, but the application for designation of change.

Article 28 (2) of the Capacity Development Act shall revise matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, among matters designated as designated occupational training establishments.

Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the designation shall be obtained from the Minister of Employment and Labor.

(1) The name and location of a vocational ability development training establishment, and 2. Representative;

3. Name, types of workplace skill development training and the method of workplace skill development training under Article 3 (2).

F. "Change of additional facilities in a lecture room or practice room" that is not prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the above Act is not changed, but changed report.

(2) The plaintiffs newly establish a temporary change in the location of an outdoor room to expand the facility.

It is only high and that the location of the above vocational school does not change itself (the existing building continues to exist).

Education was provided, and the plaintiffs were temporarily transferred only to the outdoor practice site, and the plan to return to the original state after the completion of the new official construction.

Although the construction was clarified, the location of the construction was changed two times before and after, and after, the construction was changed (E such as Man-dong-gu E.).

(3) The enforcement of the same Act on the reported matters shall not be consistent with the substance and the intent of the plaintiffs)

Rule 8 / [Form 8] In the event of workplace skill development training in the above [Form 6] instead of a report on changes in workplace skill development training facilities

It is deemed that the changed matters are converted to the changed matters by using the form of the application for designation of change.

It is difficult for the plaintiff (the plaintiff, using the above form No. 6, deleted the ‘designation' and submitted it as the ‘application for change').

In addition, it is judged that the report falls under the "report on change" as alleged by the plaintiff.

2) The first floor practice room of the building extended to the existing parking lot in the state that the parking lot was secured near the people is in line with the current status of the use;

in the process of filing an application for change, any attached parking which appears to have been made by the person in charge of his duties and has been previously secured;

The head and the procedures for the change of the use of the training room to the Office in charge of the Nam-gu Office at the latest;

The reason was that ‘the mistake is recognized as a primary crime'.

3) The Defendant violates Article 19-4 of the Parking Lot Act for leasing and using the area without a parking lot on the site other than the relevant building.

That is, the cost that the substitute site for a parking lot is not illegal to be leased and used as a substitute site separately;

It did not properly examine the arguments of the Court and accepted the remainder of May 29, 2015.

argument is asserted.

4) Furthermore, even upon examination, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission did not modify or delete the Plaintiff’s building ledger.

Even if the training facilities of the above occupational specialized school meet the requirements for designation, such as the content, form, and total floor area of the facilities under the relevant statutes.

The defendant seems to be "the alteration of the reported matters", and the defendant also dealt with the alteration of the changed matters as well as the remaining revocation disposition.

He/she went back (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du12853, Jan. 10, 2013; 201Du12853, Feb. 1, 202)

Despite the problem of some (on-the-job training room No. 1), the designation of the entire workplace skill development training facility was revoked;

③ Prior to the instant disposition, illegal matters (part 1 of the practical training room) were already corrected and the alteration of the building ledger, etc. was made.

It appears that the employee in charge is due to the simple absence of work (the prosecutor also takes into account such circumstances to suspend the indictment.

(A) At present, trainees are enrolled and are receiving normal education and training, and the defendant is dissatisfied with such circumstances.

The disposition of this case is in violation of the principle of "non-existence of grounds for disposition" and the principle of proportionality.

It is said that there is a violation of ‘the deviation and abuse of power'.