2013Nu1537. Revocation of illegal receipt amount and additional collection disposition, etc.

1. A milk tourism development company;

2. Gold-high speed stock company;

3. Korean social welfare foundation;

4. YongpafS Co., Ltd.

5. Taesung Co., Ltd.

1. The Commissioner of the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Agency;

2. The head of Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office having jurisdiction over the site.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Guhap3554 Decided August 28, 2013

July 24, 2014

August 29, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. Each disposition in the attached Table 1 in which the Defendants made against the Plaintiffs on each date listed in the "date" column for the attached Table 1 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, except for dismissal or addition of corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

• Facts No. 7 5 are as follows: ④ The representative B conducted evaluations on the Internet for trainees undergoing distance training at least once a month, but without conducting such evaluations, divided out part of trainees with objective and subjective evaluation issues, and the trainees entered part of the answer at the latest, or signed and submitted it to A at the direction of A’s employees. ⑤ In light of the description of No. 5-29, No. 10, No. 5-29, No. 7, and No. 7, it is difficult to believe that each entry of No. 7 is hard to believe, in light of the evidence No. 5-29, No. 31, and No. 60, the evidence No. 7, and the evidence No. 1 of the evidence No. 7, and the evidence No. 3 of the evidence No. 7, the evidence No.

The following shall be added between the 10th page 6 and the 6th page 6. Therefore, the following shall be added:

In addition, considering the form and content of the above provisions, purpose and purport of workplace skill development project, sanctions against business owners, preventive effects, etc., it is reasonable to view that the Minister of Employment and Labor’s provision that “the amount of additional collection for business owners, etc. is equivalent to the amount of subsidies or loans received by false or other unlawful means” is within the scope of reasonable discretion to provide that “the amount of additional collection for business owners, etc. who voluntarily reported the receipt of subsidies or loans by false or other unlawful means” under Article 22-2(1)31 of the Enforcement Rule is within the scope of 1/2 of the amount that should be additionally collected if a business owner voluntarily reported the receipt of subsidies or loans by fraudulent or other unlawful means.” On the contrary, the provision that Article 22-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule does not specify the additional collection disposition for “amount below the amount of unlawful receipt” according to specific circumstances does not violate the purpose of delegation under Article 56(3)2

•The addition of the following parts between 10 pages 19 and 19:

Now, even if the plaintiffs entrusted each of the training courses in this case to A, they have a duty to verify whether each of the training courses in this case is being conducted in accordance with appropriate procedures, if they are the plaintiffs who intend to receive training expenses from the Minister of Employment and Labor and Labor, with the support of occupational ability development training costs, and they have a duty to verify whether each of the training courses in this case is being conducted in accordance with appropriate procedures. The plaintiffs are deemed to have continuously entrusted each of the training courses in this case without going through any verification procedure even though they received some general books in lieu of training teaching materials from A and received a request from A that they will only sign the training site, and they will be entrusted with the training course in this case without going through any verification procedure. 6. Workplace skill development training is conducted in order to improve workers' necessary job skills and to prevent unfair supply of training expenses. If their trust and fairness are impaired, the basis of the occupational ability development training system may be damaged, and each of the dispositions in this case needs to prevent disadvantages to the plaintiffs, and at the same time, abuse the employment safety support system in the future.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reasonable grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall receive the award of merit;

Judges Kim Gung-hoon

Judges Kim Jong-il

1) Article 9(2)3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 5, Aug. 30, 2010) also has the same provision.

A person shall be appointed.