(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.3.30. 선고 2016구합64333 판결

The Defendant’s revocation of recognition made against the Plaintiff on May 23, 2016, six months for the entire process, and one year and six months for the entire process, and one year and six months for the pertinent process, return of the illegally received amount of KRW 6,737,620, and additional collection of the illegally received amount of KRW 6,737,620, and return of KRW 5,780 for unjust enrichment.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is operating the "Mana Fire Fighting and Electric Research Institute" (hereinafter referred to as the "private teaching institute of this case") in Yeongdeungpo-dong 4, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul.

B. The Plaintiff obtained recognition of the following two training courses from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant training courses”).

A person shall be appointed.

C. On February 20, 2016, the Defendant confirmed the following (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition grounds”) as a result of the implementation of the guidance and supervision on the instant private teaching institute (hereinafter referred to as “the instant guidance and supervision”).

Unlike the contents of the training course 10, in fact, it was operated as the qualifying examination course for the "functional chief of dangerous substance", and the teaching materials (total seven books) related to fire safety that the trainee would provide free of charge to the trainees were not paid, and the teaching materials for the qualifying examination for the "functional chief of dangerous substance" were provided.In the report of the implementation of the training, 28 trainees (total number of 28 trainees) were reported to the total number of trainees without the "outstanding trainees", but they were participating in the class A of Cheonggang A on the date of the inspection. On the date of the inspection, 24 trainees (except 1 early retired trainees) were on the date of the inspection, but five trainees, including B, etc., who are in attendance at the actual lecture, were total of 20 trainees (including Cheongwon A) and were not in the lecture room.

Unlike the contents of the training course 2, it was actually operated as the process of the qualification examination for the 'functional Design'.In fact, while the training course of this case ○○○ of each of the instant training courses was recognized and operated as the qualification examination for the 'functional Design for Dangerous Substances', the application was filed on February 12, 2016 and on February 15, 2016 for the total of KRW 6,737,620 for the training fee for the first unit period. ○○ received KRW 5,780,000 for the training fee for the 2-3 unit period of each of the instant training courses.

D. On May 23, 2016, the Defendant rendered the following dispositions (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the grounds of the instant guidance and supervision results.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i) procedural defects;

The Defendant did not specify the grounds for disposition in detail while rendering the instant disposition, and did not clearly state what the grounds for disposition in this case violated the Vocational Skills Development Act, which is a basis statute.

2) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

A) Voluntary change of the training content

Upon recognition of each of the instant training courses, the Plaintiff included the process of functional test in the training implementation plan, and the qualification for the chief of the hazardous materials technical center is a qualification required by fire-fighting safety laws and subordinate statutes or fire-fighting technology practitioners, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff educated a different course from the training courses recognized by the Plaintiff.

B) The Plaintiff’s offering of all the seven training teaching materials recognized by the Plaintiff related to the failure to provide fire fighting safety education is time and costly impossible, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff violated the above-mentioned contents by providing one of the training teaching materials.

C) The purport of setting the number of trainees related to the excess of the number of trainees is that there is a concern that the number of trainees would not be properly educated if the number of trainees exceeds the number of trainees. As such, the Plaintiff was educated in the 39 lecture room that can accommodate 39 trainees, and there was no possibility of such concern.

D) The trainees who were not in the lecture room on the day of the instant guidance and supervision related to the failure to manage the attendance of trainees was not only on the rooftop or resting facilities, but also on the day of the Plaintiff’s failure to confirm the daily presence of trainees during the locking period.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(i) the existence of procedural defects

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall provide the basis and reasons for a disposition to the parties in the event of an administrative agency. This purport is to exclude the arbitrary decision of the administrative agency and to enable the parties to properly cope with the administrative remedy procedure. Therefore, in full view of the contents of the written disposition and the relevant statutes and the overall process, etc. up to the date of the disposition, if the parties concerned are sufficiently aware of what grounds and grounds were to be taken, and it does not interfere with going through an administrative remedy procedure, the disposition cannot be deemed unlawful unless the grounds and reasons for the disposition are specifically stated in the written disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du3631, Apr. 29, 2016).

B) In the instant case:

In full view of the following circumstances, evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and evidence Nos. 3, the Plaintiff appears to have sufficiently known the grounds and reasons for the instant disposition, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a procedural defect in the instant disposition.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

① Although the Defendant did not state specific grounds for disposition in the instant disposition while rendering the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s representative, at the time of guidance and supervision, prepared a written confirmation (Evidence No. 3) that recognized the grounds for disposition in this case. On April 14, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant disposition by stating the grounds for disposition in advance. As such, the Plaintiff was fully aware of the grounds for disposition in this case.

② The instant disposition reason was that: (a) provided training courses different from the training courses recognized by the Plaintiff; (b) provided free of charge; (c) provided occupational ability development training in violation of recognized details, such as training in excess of the prescribed number of employees; and (d) received training fees by educating other training courses; and (b) falls under Article 19(2)5 and 2 of the Vocational Skills Development Act; and (c) as the Defendant stated in Article 19 of the Vocational Skills Development Act and Article 6-3 [Attachment Table 1-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act based on the instant disposition, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant neglected to present the basis for the disposition.

③ Meanwhile, the Defendant did not specify the grounds for the return of illegally received training fees and additional collection while rendering the instant disposition.

However, since the Defendant issued a disposition to return training fees and additionally collect training fees on the ground of the Plaintiff’s wrongful receipt of training fees, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to have known that the ground for the disposition was Article 56(2) and (3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, and the Defendant neglected to present the ground for the disposition to return the illegally received amount and to additionally collect the amount, and it does not seem to have any obstacle to the Plaintiff’s moving back to the relief procedure.

(ii) the existence of the reasons for the action

A) Voluntary change of the training content

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, who taught the fluor course of hazardous materials, was engaged in workplace skill development training in violation of the details recognized by the Plaintiff, by taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 2, 5, 7, and 8 (including the fluor number) and the overall purport of the pleadings:

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

① The training course 1 belongs to the occupational category of fire safety management, and the training course 2 belongs to the occupational category of fire-fighting facility design supervision, while the training course belongs to the occupational category of fire-fighting facility design supervision, the training course belongs to the occupational category of transport management of dangerous substances and the occupational category of safety management of dangerous substances. Unlike the training goal or major contents, each of the training courses in this case deals with the design, construction, inspection, and administration of fire-fighting facilities and training target for training necessary for fire safety management, the training course of the hazardous materials technical field is classified into a very different training course, such as dealing with the safe storage, handling, and manufacturing of hazardous substances. In fact, the head of the local labor office recognizes the training course of the hazardous materials technical field separate from each of

② Training implementation plans (Evidence B) submitted by the Plaintiff include only training courses 1 and 2, and only “fire-fighting engineer” and “fire-fighting system management company” are included in the relevant certificate column. The description of the technical site for dangerous substances is not about training but about the requirements for trainees.

B) In addition to the contents of the training implementation plan that the Plaintiff would provide seven training materials free of charge to trainees, unlike the contents of the training implementation plan that the Plaintiff would provide the seven training materials, the Plaintiff provided the above seven training materials (the name of the teaching materials: the practical skills of the hazardous materials) to trainees, and the Plaintiff paid some of the above seven training materials with compensation to some trainees. Thus, the Plaintiff violated the recognized contents and training for vocational ability development.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

C) In addition to the written evidence Nos. 2-1 and 3 regarding excess of the number of trainees, the Plaintiff was recognized as 28 training personnel from the Defendant, but it can be recognized that the Plaintiff provided training to 29 trainees, including A, who are not state-funded trainees. As such, the Plaintiff did workplace skill development training in violation of the recognized details. The size of the lecture room of the instant private teaching institute does not change on the ground that it is sufficient to accommodate 29 lecture personnel.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

D) The grounds for the disposition of the instant case pertaining to failure to manage the participation in training courses include that the Plaintiff neglected to manage the participation in training courses 1, and the Defendant asserts that the above grounds for the disposition fall under Article 19(2)5 of the Vocational Skills Development Act.

However, pursuant to Article 19 (2) 5 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, the Minister of Employment and Labor may issue a corrective order or revoke recognition of training courses, if a person who has obtained recognition of training courses for vocational ability development violates the recognized details, and thus, the Minister may not be deemed to have conducted workplace skill development training in violation of the details recognized by him/her, barring special circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct an examination and management by a specific method, even if he/she was found to have violated

In the instant case, there is no circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff violated the details recognized as a specific method of management or otherwise recognized as a result of management of the launch. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff violated Article 19(2)5 of the Vocational Skills Development Act solely on the ground that the Plaintiff neglected the management of the launch of a trainee.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

3) Whether the instant disposition is unlawful

As seen earlier, the part of the grounds for the instant disposition that the Plaintiff neglected the management of the launch does not constitute the grounds for the instant disposition.

However, under the premise that the Defendant neglected to manage the progress of the event falls under Article 19(5) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 6-3 and attached Table 1-2 / 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act / [Attachment 1-2] 2. E of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Defendant issued the instant disposition by inclusion in the grounds for voluntary change in the contents of training [the grounds for voluntary change in the contents of training specified in attached Table 2. 5]. Thus, the part that neglected to manage the progress of the event does not affect the determination of the instant disposition

Therefore, even if the part of the Plaintiff’s neglecting the management of the withdrawal could not affect the contents of the instant disposition, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.