2019Gudan6039 Measures such as entrustment of vocational training courses and restriction on recognition?

A

Law Firm K&C, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

Head of Central and Central Regional Employment and Labor Agency:

December 9, 2019

January 13, 2020

1. On May 9, 2019, the Defendant’s disposition to revoke recognition of the training courses for the Plaintiff’s driver’s license + the disposition to revoke recognition of the training courses for one year (from May 10, 2019 to May 9, 2020) and the disposition to restrict the entrustment and recognition of the same course and the disposition to additionally restrict the addition of the same course to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of disposition;

A. The plaintiff operates the "CAD Research Institute" which conducts vocational skills development training in B at both weeks, and the "AC Research Institute" which is the vocational ability development training course recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor ＋ the "ACAR" course (hereinafter "training course") is composed of 5 days of training days, average 4 hours of training per day, total training hours of 20 hours (or 60 hours of theory, 160 hours of practical skills) with the aim of acquiring the driver's license of the driver's license of the driver's license of the cirr and the driver's license of the cirr (hereinafter "training course"). The training facility has an outdoor training place based on 10 persons, one lecture room for theoretical classes (D. 30.4mm). The lecture room has been related to the number of students among the equipment installed in the lecture room with the facility area of 3.0m2 per capita per person, and 20 persons on the cirical books and safety signs for the 10th of August 20.

B. From February 11, 2019 to April 29, 2019, the Plaintiff was found to have attended the training course with ten general trainees on the part of the State-funded students, as well as ten general students on the part of the general students, to have exceeded 10 students on the part of the students.

C. On May 9, 2019, on the ground that the Defendant conducted workplace skill development training in violation of the details recognized by operating training courses different from the quota applied to the Plaintiff, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the recognition of training courses, to entrust and recognize the training courses for one year, and to additionally restrict the same course (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Identification Evidence: Evidence No. 1, 2, 3, Evidence No. 1, 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the course of a class of training course, a part of the training course, only one general trainee registered with a private teaching institute at his/her own expense is taking lessons together with ten state-funded trainees. It cannot be said that such violation violates the contents recognized to the extent that it would violate the purpose of training on important matters of training courses.

Even if it is judged otherwise, the instant disposition was too harsh and was abused or deviates from discretion, in light of the degree of violation and the fact that all trainees of training courses have passed the written examination of the technician examination and the purpose of training has been achieved.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the reason for the disposition, the public interest purpose to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances.

In order to be recognized as a training course, the prescribed number is one of the requirements (Article 8(1)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the attached Table), the fixed number is 30 meters of the fixed number of lecture rooms for training facilities, 1.5 meters of the fixed number of lecture rooms for training facilities, 30 meters of the fixed number of lecture rooms for one person, and 1.5 meters of the fixed number of lecture rooms for the plaintiff (Article 8(1)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the attached Table), and the fixed number of lecture rooms for 1.1m of the fixed number of lecture rooms for 30.4m and the fixed number of lecture rooms for 30.4m and 1.1m of the fixed number of lecture rooms for the plaintiff

However, in comparison with the "where the disposition standards are recognized by fraudulent or other illegal means", the revocation of the training course and the one-year entrustment and restriction on recognition constitutes a significant measure among the criteria for the measures stipulated in the attached Enforcement Rule, and in particular, it should be recognized that the purpose of training is to be violated with respect to the important matters of the training course to the extent corresponding thereto. However, in this case, it is doubtful whether the Plaintiff’s conduct of theoretical training in the lecture is limited to the extent that the number of trainees exceeds 10 students and the number of general students is less than 1.1m in light of the area standard, and that the number of safety sign sets is less than 1.1m in light of the size standard, and that only that alone, it is questionable whether the Plaintiff violated the important matters of the training course to the extent that it is against the purpose of training (in theoretical classes, it is questionable whether there is a big difference between 10 and 11). In addition, considering the degree of the violation, it is difficult to readily conclude that there is no reason in accordance with the attached Table 1-2.

Therefore, the instant disposition that determined that the Plaintiff conducted training courses in violation of the purpose of training prescribed by relevant statutes is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons.

Judges Equitable

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.