2017Nu5903. Administrative affairs for violations of the Workers' Vocational Skills Development Act

Confirmation of Validity

A Stock Company

The President of the Gwangju Regional Labor Agency

Gwangju District Court Decision 2016Guhap13151 Decided November 23, 2017

April 12, 2018

May 31, 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 is revoked. In the first instance court, the first instance court’s decision is revoked. In the first instance court’s decision, the Defendant’s first instance judgment against the Plaintiff is revoked: ① Two years (from October 30, 2015 to October 29, 2017), two years (from October 30, 2015 to October 29, 2017), ② the pertinent course (in the first instance), one year (from October 30, 2017 to October 29, 2018), three years for restriction on appointment and recognition (from October 30, 2017 to October 29, 2018), ③ the collection of training fees of KRW 89,79,795,880, additional collection, and additional collection of KRW 89,795,880, and the revocation of the designation of training facilities for vocational ability development on December 1, 2015 are confirmed as invalid.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if all the submitted evidence and arguments are examined, the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court is recognized as legitimate.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: Article 22-1 (1) 2 of the first instance judgment "Article 22-2 (1) of the second instance judgment" and Article 22-2 (1) 2 of the second instance judgment other than correction, and it is identical to that of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge shall be appointed by a judge.

Judges Gin Sung-ju

Judges Hong Man-man

1) The plaintiff stated in the complaint and the petition of appeal the date of disposition as "2015, 11.3." However, Gap evidence 3 (the same as Eul evidence 5).

According to the statement, the disposal date is deemed to be October 29, 2015, and it seems to be a clerical error.