2015Gudan5458 Business owners' vocational skills development training expenses, etc.

1. A;

2. B

3. C

4. D;

Head of Central and Central Regional Employment and Labor Agency:

May 18, 2016

June 15, 2016

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. As of February 3, 2015, the Defendant ordered the return of KRW 464,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff B and the additional collection of KRW 464,000 for the said expenses;

An order to return KRW 564,00 to Plaintiff D’s workplace skill development training costs and a disposition to additionally collect KRW 564,000;

B. As of February 10, 2015, the Defendant issued an order for return of KRW 848,000 to Plaintiff A’s workplace skill development training expenses and additional collection of KRW 848,000;

Ordering return of KRW 1,048,000 to Plaintiff C and additional collection of KRW 1,048,00;

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs entered into an entrustment contract with the head of the Education Development Institute (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the Education Development Institute”) which was recognized as vocational ability training courses by the Minister of Employment and Labor, as the persons operating each child-care center at the Council members, such as the Council-Si, Yang-si, and Yang-si (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant training courses”) and conducted workplace skill development training courses for childcare center teachers under his/her jurisdiction between April 15, 2012 and January 28, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “instant training courses”).

B. All of the training courses of this case are conducted by the trainees using the teaching materials in the printed media that are delivered from the training course, using the teaching materials for the training course, and the training course was conducted by the distance training method that has participated in the evaluation at least once a month after accessing the training course management system on the training website for the head of the training course by visiting the training course management system for the head of the training course at least once a week. The results of the evaluation during the training period of the trainees must be at least 60 points in all. The plaintiffs received subsidies such as the amount of the "expenses for the occupational ability development training for the industry" stated in the purport of the claim for the subsidies for the training course of this case, from the Human Resources Development Service of Korea who is delegated with the support of the training expenses by the defendant.

D. As a result of investigating into the supply of workplace skill development training subsidies under the Plaintiffs’ names, the Seoul Regional Police Agency’s metropolitan investigation group discovered the fact that the training completion registration was made by falsely reporting the completion of training by means of manipulating the details of computerized information of the training program using forged programs, and inputting false computerized information data as if the trainees directly prepared a training site and a test site (hereinafter “instant misconduct”).

E. Accordingly, the defendant issued a disposition to state the purport of the claim against the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs were subsidized with training costs by fraud or other improper means (hereinafter collectively referred to as "each of the above dispositions").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

Even if each of the training courses of this case was conducted poorly, the plaintiffs were erroneous, and did not participate in the training course. The plaintiffs applied for subsidies to believe that the training course of this case was conducted properly, and thus, they cannot be deemed to have received training costs by false or other unlawful means. The plaintiffs did not have any intention, negligence, and responsibility for the unlawful act of this case. In addition, there is no fact that the plaintiffs recruited the training course of this case and the unlawful act of this case.

(2) Violation of the proportionality principle

Even if the plaintiffs are liable, the instant disposition is against the principle of proportionality and is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the following facts can be acknowledged:

(1) When entering into a training consignment agreement with the plaintiffs, the trainee of infant care teachers completed the agreement and completed the agreement. The training fee concluded the training consignment agreement with the plaintiffs to the effect that it would allow them to be refunded in full, and then the plaintiffs registered the teachers belonging to child care centers operated by the plaintiffs as trainees. The training course, training period, training expenses, and trainees are not in the form of training consignment agreement, and each of the above contents was decided voluntarily on the basis of the teachers' list of teachers who were provided by the plaintiffs.

(2) In order to collect each of the instant training courses, trainees shall have access to the training management system of the head education website at least once a week, conduct the Jindo management procedure, participate in the evaluation at least once a month, and obtain points at least 60 points from each evaluation. Teachers belonging to childcare centers registered as trainees shall receive training materials delivered by mail and confirm the receipt of books, and have access to the training materials first once to the training management system of the head education website, and thereafter have not completed the education management and monthly evaluation, or completed and submitted the Jindo management and monthly evaluation.

(3) The head education operated a computer system using a forged program that quiz pool for each parking system, Jindo management, and monthly evaluation answer, etc., to automatically prepare and register the aforementioned learning management system, thereby registering the completion of the training course as if the above teachers directly participated in lectures and applied for monthly evaluation, and issued a certificate and certificate of completion to the above teachers. (4) After reporting the completion of the training course for the above teachers, the head education completed the training course with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and then prepared an application for subsidies for workplace skill development training in the name of the plaintiffs and sent them to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs submitted the above application for subsidies received from the head education to the Human Resources Development Service of Korea, and received a report and application for subsidies as if the teachers under his/her jurisdiction completed the training course in a normal manner.

D. Determination

(1) Whether grounds for action exist

(A) Sanction against a violation of administrative laws is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of administrative laws to achieve administrative purposes, and thus, it may be imposed even if there is no intentional or negligent act on the part of the violator, barring special circumstances, such as where the violator’s failure to perform his/her duties is not caused (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003). “False or other unlawful means for which an order for return and a sanction for additional collection may be issued under Article 56(2) and (3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act” refers to any unlawful act conducted by a person who is not generally entitled to receive, in order to conceal the eligibility for payment or lack of eligibility to receive training fees (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4272, Jun. 11, 2009).

(B) In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs received subsidies from the Defendants by fraud or other improper means, and the Plaintiffs’ liability is recognized.

(1) Even if the plaintiffs entrusted the training courses of this case to the chief education, they are obligated to confirm whether each of the training courses of this case is being conducted through proper procedures if they want to receive vocational skills development training from the Minister of Employment and Labor. In addition, prior to applying for subsidies, the teachers registered as trainees of each of the training courses of this case are obligated to manage and confirm whether they actually completed the training course by undergoing lectures and participating in the evaluation of Jindo management. However, even though they failed to perform their duties and submitted to the defendant an application for subsidies for workplace skill development training training conducted from the senior education without undergoing any verification procedure, it cannot be deemed that the errors in the management of the above plaintiffs were insignificant. It is difficult to view that the plaintiffs applied for subsidies from the chief education before entering into a contract for entrusted training to the defendant. In light of the above, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs' arbitrary completion of the training courses of this case, the number of training courses of each of the trainees of this case, the number of trainees of each of the training courses of this case, the training courses of this case, and the number of trainees.

c) If the Defendant had known such fact, it would be deemed that the Plaintiffs did not pay the subsidies to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ above act should be deemed to have influenced the decision-making on the payment of subsidies as a fraudulent act committed by a business owner who is not entitled to receive subsidies under the disguised eligibility.

(C) In addition, as to whether the plaintiffs conspired with the education for the principal and the unlawful act of this case, the defendant did not have the grounds for the disposition of this case, and the above assertion by the plaintiffs is not reasonable without any need for further review.

(2) Whether the principle of proportionality is violated

In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the purport of the aforementioned facts and the entire pleadings, each of the instant dispositions, even considering the various circumstances alleged by the Plaintiffs, cannot be deemed as violating the principle of proportionality.

In other words, as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs received subsidies by unlawful means and received subsidies for a long time, and the frequency and amount of the act of this case continues to be significant, and both the amount of illegal receipt and additional collection ordered by the Defendant and the amount of occupational ability development training are conducted in accordance with the standards prescribed by relevant statutes, such as the Vocational Skills Development Act, and workplace skill development training is conducted in order to obtain and improve the necessary job skills of workers. In order to prevent the unfair supply of training expenses, the management of the trainees’ application and completion should be thoroughly conducted, and the trust and fairness thereof may be undermined, the foundation of the workplace skill development training system may be undermined. Each disposition of this case may be detrimental to the Plaintiffs who committed such unlawful act at the same time, and at the same time, may be deemed necessary for public interest to prevent unlawful acts that abuse the employment safety support system in the future, and the public interest to be strictly controlled and managed for the efficient and transparent operation of the workplace skill development training support fund cannot be considered to be less than the Plaintiffs’ private interest restricted by each disposition of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

For the transfer of judge

Attached Form

Relevant statutes

▣ 근로자직업능력 개발법

Article 20 (Support for Vocational Skills Development for Employers, Business Operators' Organizations, etc.)

The Minister of Employment and Labor shall order employers or groups of employers who conduct workplace skill development projects falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

A person, workers' organization or federation thereof (hereinafter referred to as "business owners' organization, etc.") shall be subsidized for expenses incurred in conducting the relevant business.

(b) Loans may be granted.

1. Workplace skill development training for workers (including training conducted on commission);

Article 55 (Restrictions on Support, Loan or Taking Courses due to Illegal Acts)

The Minister of Employment and Labor shall subsidize expenses or raise loans pursuant to Articles 17, 18, 20, 22 and 23.

The Human Resources Development Council or vocational ability of each industry, such as workers, business owners, business owners' organizations, etc. intending to or already receive;

If a development organization falls under any of the following subparagraphs, it shall subsidize expenses by fraud or other improper means:

3 years from the date on which he/she intends to obtain a loan or has already received a loan (in cases falling under subparagraph 2, the date on which recognition is revoked);

Any restriction on taking workplace skill development training under Articles 12 and 15 for the period prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor.

(b) Not providing subsidies or loans under Articles 17, 18, 20, 22 and 23 may be allowed.

1. Where he/she has obtained or intends to obtain a loan or subsidy by fraudulent or other illegal means;

Article 56 (Refund of Amount of Illegal Payments and Additional Collection)

(2) The Minister of Employment and Labor shall revoke recognition pursuant to Article 19 (2) or 24 (2) or Article 55 (2).

The development of human resources by industry, such as workers, business operators, business operators' organizations, etc. whose education, support, or loans are restricted;

Support by fraudulent or other illegal means from among the amount already subsidized or loaned by a body or a workplace skill development organization;

or may order the return of the amount of loan received.

(3) Where the State, a local government, or the Minister of Employment and Labor orders a return pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), it shall be false.

(b) In accordance with the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor for the amount of subsidies or loans received by other unlawful means.

(d) The following amounts may be additionally collected:

2. Persons by industrial sector, such as workers, business operators, employers' organizations, etc., whose subsidies, loans or taking courses are restricted pursuant to Article 55.

Council for Resources Development or Vocational Skills Development Organization: An amount not exceeding the amount of money unlawfully received.

Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers

Article 22 (Restrictions on Support, Loans, or Taking Courses due to Illegal Acts)

"Period prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor" in the main body of Article 55 (1) and (2) of the Act means the period prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor.

6-2. The same shall be applicable to 6-2

Article 22-2 (Refund of Amount of Illegal Payment and Additional Collection)

The standards for additional collection under Article 56 (3) of the Act shall be as follows:

2. Cases falling under Article 56 (3) 1 (b) and 2 of the Act: The act of causing false or other unlawful means;

additional collection of the amount corresponding to the amount of the subsidy or loan shall be completed.