2018Nu48474 Workers' Vocational skills development training expenses, etc.

A

Head of Central and Central Regional Employment and Labor Agency:

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Guhap11505 Decided May 17, 2018

October 19, 2018

November 16, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition on August 11, 2016 and the disposition on the return of illegal training costs, additional collection, and restriction on loans for workplace skill development training conducted by the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The plaintiff's assertion at the trial is not different from the argument at the trial at the court of first instance, and even if all the evidence submitted at the court of first instance is examined, the decision at the court of first instance that dismissed the lawsuit at the court of

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, since it is the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ The following shall have been cut to 5 to 6 pages below 3:

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

The Defendant is a business owner B and E at the time of the Child Care Center that received vocational skills development training costs by fraud or other improper means, and the Plaintiff is not the other party to the instant disposition, and the Plaintiff is not a party to the instant disposition, and thus there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant disposition.

In full view of the following circumstances, the background of the above disposition, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the result of fact-finding on the court of first instance and the purport of the entire pleadings, the other party to the disposition of this case is not the plaintiff but the plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's legal interest is infringed due to the disposition of this case. Thus, there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case against the plaintiff.

A. In accordance with Articles 20(1), 55(2), and 56(2) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, where the Minister of Employment and Labor grants workplace skill development training costs, the other party to the provision is an employer, etc., and where an employer, etc. has received subsidies by fraud or other improper means, the other party to the provision is also the above employer, etc., who takes measures to restrict loans, return illegal payments, and additionally collect the costs of workplace skill development training. As to the instant case, the party to the provision of workplace skill development training costs from the Government Branch of the Central Labor Agency of the Central and Secondary Labor Agency is B and E, which is the employer at the time of the D child care center, and the other party to the disposition of the instant case is not the Plaintiff (the other party to the disposition of the instant case is the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff

2. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges of the presiding judge, Yang Sung-ju

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Mok-si