2011Nu45490. Restrictions on the payment of employment insurance subsidies and cancellation of the return disposition, etc.

Export-Import Bank

The Head of Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office Seoul Southern Site

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap23276 decided November 18, 2011

July 5, 2012

July 12, 2012

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

On April 29, 201, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff, (1) refund of training expenses for employment insurance, additional collection of (b) training expenses, (3) restriction on the payment of employment insurance, (4) refund of training expenses during the period of restriction on payment, and (2) revocation of the disposition of site payment for workplace skill development training by the business owner on July 11, 201

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The same shall apply to ① the part in the claim, as described in paragraph (1).

(b) the Defendant;

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation is dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the appellate court did not receive the instant subsidy by fraud or other improper means.

However, sanctions against violation of administrative laws and regulations are imposed only on the objective facts of violation of administrative laws and regulations to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as where a failure to perform an obligation is not caused by an intentional act or negligence, barring any justifiable reason, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002517, Sept. 2, 2003). However, in full view of the arguments in the items of evidence No. 4, No. 1, No. 4, and No. 8, the Plaintiff’s employee, at the attendance at the attendance of the instant training on September 11, 201, when the Plaintiff was an employee abroad, may be found to have made a false statement in the attendance book, and as long as the Plaintiff did not prevent the above misconduct of A, its employee, the Plaintiff is bound to take administrative responsibility for the above unlawful act, and the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case’s subsidy cannot be accepted for the reason that the Plaintiff did not have any justifiable reason to neglect the Plaintiff’s duty.

3. In light of the fact that it is difficult for the appellate court to detect illegal receipt of subsidies for workplace skill development training costs, the Defendant asserts that the instant provision cannot be deemed null and void because it violates the delegation purpose of the parent law or the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution, in order to prevent an employer from committing an illegal receipt of subsidies for workplace skill development training costs.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 5 and 6, this case’s enforcement decree has reached 122,309 business entities, and the total amount of subsidies for workplace skill development training expenses paid in 2011 can be recognized as constituting approximately KRW 42,465,70,000. In light of the above, it is anticipated that it would not be practically easy to detect illegal receipt of subsidies, but even considering the above, considering the various circumstances cited in the judgment of the first instance court (No. 6th class to 4th class to 10th class of the judgment of the first instance court), the instant enforcement decree has no choice but to be deemed null and void since it violates the delegation purpose of the mother law or the constitutional principle against excessive prohibition. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

4. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and all appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed as they are without merit.

The assistant judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Gangseo-gu

Judges Cho Young-soo