beta
Cases
2012Nu1410 Revocation of a restriction on subsidization of costs, etc.
Plaintiff-Appellant
A Stock Company
Defendant Appellant
1. The Commissioner of the Gwangju Regional Employment Agency;
2. The head of Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency;
The first instance judgment
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap38537 decided April 20, 2012
Conclusion of Pleadings
November 20, 2013
Imposition of Judgment
November 20, 2013
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and all of the lawsuit concerning this part shall be dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of claim
The head of the Defendant Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office’s restriction on subsidization of expenses for one year on August 30, 201, and orders to return KRW 235,732,330 to the Plaintiff, 439,740 to return training expenses, and additional collection of KRW 439,740 to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2011, and orders to return KRW 48,649,106 to the Plaintiff on September 1, 201 are revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim as to this part is dismissed (the part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the return order of KRW 439,740 and the revocation of additional collection order of KRW 439,740, which was filed by the Commissioner of the Regional Employment and Labor Agency of Gwangju, was dismissed at the first instance court, but was excluded from the object
Reasons
The fact that the head of the Defendant Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Agency revoked ex officio an order to limit the subsidization of expenses for the year on October 15, 2013, to return KRW 235,732,330 of training expenses, and the head of the Defendant Seoul Regional Labor and Labor Agency’s revocation of the order to refund KRW 48,649,106 of training expenses on October 17, 2013 does not conflict between the parties.
Therefore, since the part of the lawsuit of this case concerning each of the above dispositions is seeking revocation of non-existent dispositions, and thus, it is unlawful as there is no interest in the lawsuit, the part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the lawsuit
Judges
The presiding judge, senior judge and senior judge
Judges Noh Jeong-il
Judges Jeong Jae-ok