2013Nu1490 Order to return the illegally received amount and revocation of a disposition to additionally collect, etc.

Thai-si Corporation, Inc.

Daejeon Head of Local Employment and Labor Agency

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Guhap3509 Decided August 28, 2013

July 24, 2014

August 29, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of return of KRW 142,518,080 to the plaintiff on July 18, 2012, and the disposition of restricting loans for 360 days (from July 19, 2012 to July 13, 2013) from the date of additional collection and disposition of KRW 142,518,080 to the plaintiff, respectively.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows, except for dismissal or addition of corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s claim for revocation of the instant restrictive disposition is lawful, and the period of restriction (360 days, 2012, 19. from July 13, 2013 to July 13, 2013) has already expired and its validity has already ceased, and thus, the instant claim for revocation of the instant restrictive disposition is deemed dismissed, as there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the said disposition.

(6) On the other hand, if there is a concern that the Plaintiff would be subject to further disposition based on the grounds for increase or decrease of vocational skills development training costs, the other party subject to the preceding disposition would be sufficiently aware of the need to protect the rights through the revocation lawsuit (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Du1684, Jun. 22, 2006). In this case, Article 22 [Attachment Table 6-2] of the Enforcement Rule provides that “If the Plaintiff would be subject to further restrictive disposition based on the following separate guidelines, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff would be subject to further restrictive disposition within the scope of 3 years for the sake of increasing or decreasing vocational skills development training costs.” Therefore, the Plaintiff would have no legal interest to seek revocation of the instant disposition by stipulating that the Plaintiff would have been subject to further restrictive disposition based on the aforementioned guidelines, including the following facts:

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall receive the award of merit;

Judges Kim Gung-hoon

Judges Kim Jong-il

1) Article 9 (2) 3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 5, Aug. 30, 2010) is the same.

It was prescribed easy.