logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.01.22 2017구단50161
반환명령 및 추가징수 결정 등 취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The contents of the Plaintiff’s entrusted training are as follows: (a) Plaintiff A is a child care center; and (b) Plaintiff B is a business owner operating a D child care center; and (c) E (hereinafter “E”).

) After entering into an entrustment training contract with a workplace care teacher, the employer’s workplace skill development training expenses were paid in its account pursuant to Article 27 of the Employment Insurance Act by submitting to the Human Resources Development Service of Korea documents that the workplace care teacher had been prepaid to E for training upon meeting the requirements for completing the entrusted training (Article 8 of the Regulations on Assistance to Workplace Skill Development Training (Public Notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor)).

(2) The costs of workplace skill development training received by the Plaintiffs as such are KRW 1,596,300 for three infant care teachers (one total number of 27 students per year), including the “Tolin2-14”, which was conducted from May 14, 2012 to March 3, 2014 in the total of 13 training courses including the “Tolin2-14”, and KRW 2,935,611 in the case of Plaintiff B, and KRW 1,596,300 in the total of four training courses including the “Ilin Production1”, which was conducted from December 7, 2013 to March 29, 2014.

B. During the investigation into E, which is an entrusted training institution, the Incheon Bupyeong Police Station: (a) issued a false commission contract and tax invoice as if the business owner of 488 childcare centers, including the Plaintiff, did not preferentially pay training expenses; and (b) notified the Defendant that the trainee did not attend the training course at least 80% and did not meet the completion standards and received training expenses even if the trainee did not attend the training course; (c) on April 22, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the completion standards as if he met the completion standards; and (d) on April 22, 2016.

arrow