(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.5.7. 선고 2014구합1451 판결

The Defendant’s disposition of returning workplace skill development training costs of KRW 945,700 against the Plaintiff on July 21, 2013 and additional collection of the same amount, and revocation of a disposition of support and restriction on loans of KRW 300 (from August 23, 2014 to June 18, 2015).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff's status

The plaintiff is a company that runs real estate leasing business, etc. in Seo-gu, Seo-gu.

B. The Plaintiff, who received commissioned education and subsidies for workplace skill development training, entered into a contract for commissioned education for the vocational ability development training courses under the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter referred to as the “Vocational Skills Development Act”), which is a commissioned education company, and for the vocational ability development training courses under the Vocational Skills Development Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Vocational Skills Development Act”). From January 14, 2012 to August 24, 2012, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant the total amount of KRW 945,700 as stated in the support amount table as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

C. On May 29, 2013, the Commissioner of the Provincial Police Agency of Jeollabuk-do notified the head of the Gwangju Regional Labor Agency of the investigation results of the Provincial Police Agency of the fact that the Plaintiff entrusted the instant training institution with automatic learning programs from January 14, 2012 to August 25, 2012 to automatically proceed with the process of dynamic image learning necessary for completion of test and evaluation, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff failed to obtain government subsidies through fraudulent completion necessary for refund and sent them to the previous Jeju District Public Prosecutor’s Office of 13 May 2013, 2013 (the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff entrusted the instant training institution with automatic learning programs from January 14, 2012 to August 24, 2012, and that the amount of the instant subsidy should fall short of 10 to 30 days from May 13, 2013, 205.

In accordance with Article 8(1)2(b) of the Regulations on Support for Workplace Skill Development Training for a business owner, the rate of study performance shall be at least 80/100; however, the Plaintiff, even though the actual rate of the study performance of his/her employees is less than 80/100, has been less than 945,700 won by claiming training fees for trainees who completed false courses by manipulating the program for alteration of the study performance, and by claiming training fees for those trainees who completed false courses.

On the other hand, the grounds for the above support and loan restriction are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6 through 10, Eul evidence 1, 4, 7 through 12 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) No legitimate ground for disposition exists

Although the Defendant issued the instant disposition while the Plaintiff received training costs illegally, the Plaintiff did not have publicly recruited the instant training institution and the training fees in advance, and did not know that the instant training institution operated the learning progress rate using the altered program. The instant training institution’s manipulation of the learning progress rate by the training institution was due to the failure to manage the Defendant, and thus, cannot be held liable to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful.

2) In light of the fact that each of the instant dispositions was due to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts, and that the Defendant, who was granted the instant training institution’s duty to regulate unlawful acts, was unable to detect it, and thus holding the Plaintiff responsible for the illegal act with the instant training institution is contrary to the principle of proportionality and equality, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 1 shall be as listed in attached Table 1.

3. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

In full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) The Plaintiff entrusted the instant training institution with vocational skills development training to the Plaintiff’s workers by means of online remote learning, and conducted vocational skills development training on January 1, 200, and applied for subsidies for vocational skills development training as stated in the table â……”.

2) On the other hand, the instant training institution, as shown in the attached Table 2, operated the Jindo rate of 80-95% by using the program for alteration of the learning rate, even though the ratio of the Plaintiff’s class hours (hereinafter referred to as “the ratio”) based on the training hours by each training course (hereinafter referred to as “the ratio”) is merely 0-27.99%, as shown in the attached Table 2, and the relevant employee was treated as having completed each training course.

(b) Whether a legitimate reason exists;

1) “False or any other unlawful means” under Articles 55(2)1, 56(2), and 56(3)2 of the Vocational Skills Development Act refers to any act that, in general, is not correct under the generally accepted social norms, is an act that may affect the decision-making on the payment of training costs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du24764, Jul. 24, 2014).

2) Examining the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized through the aforementioned facts and evidence in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff’s application for subsidies for workplace skill development training to the employees despite the Plaintiff’s failure to meet the completion standards of training courses constitutes a case where training expenses were subsidized by fraud or other improper means.

① According to Article 8(1)2(b) of the former Regulations on Supporting Workplace Skill Development Training (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2012-118, Oct. 25, 2012), in cases of workplace skill development training conducted by means of Internet remote training, the amount of a trainee’s actual rate of learning is at least 80% and falls under the completion standard to receive training costs. In light of the content and form of relevant provisions, such as Article 11(1) [Attachment Table 4] of the above Support Regulations, workplace skill development training conducted by means of Internet remote training is set training hours for each content, and in determining whether a trainee’s actual rate of learning learning meets the completion standard, the above training hours are compared to the above training hours.

It should be considered that the actual time of the trainee is the most important factor.

However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s employees met the completion standards of at least 80% of the learning margin merely because they were 0-27.99% of the respective training courses by the Plaintiff’s employees, and that the Plaintiff’s manager’s confirmation certificate (Evidence A 13) and “H’s confirmation certificate (Evidence A 12) entered the Plaintiff’s employees’ attendance of Internet lectures at the beginning) and the Plaintiff’s employees’ attendance of Internet lectures at each evidence.” However, each of the above confirmation certificates is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s attendance of the training courses at issue in this case is difficult in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff, H, and I, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s normal completion of the training courses at issue in this case by itself with each of the above confirmation statements alone.

(2) In full view of the content, form, and system of the relevant statutes, and the meaning and nature of subsidies for training expenses, which provide that the period for granting subsidies and loans, which may be imposed in cases where subsidies were granted by fraudulent or other illegal means pursuant to the delegation under Articles 55(2)1 and 56(2) and (3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act and Article 22 [Attachment Table 6-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act, which provides for the period for imposing restrictions on subsidies and loans, shall be considered as grounds for mitigation in cases where subsidies and loans were granted by intention or gross negligence, comprehensively considering the details, form, and system of the relevant statutes, and the meaning and nature of subsidies for training expenses, where a worker applies for subsidies for training expenses differently from the fact that the worker satisfies the completion standards as if he/she were to have completed, the Plaintiff applied for subsidies for training expenses that should not be paid. Thus, even if the Plaintiff did not know that the worker was unable to meet the completion standards by entrusting vocational skills development training to the instant training institution, it shall be deemed to have received subsidies by fraudulent or other unlawful means (see, etc.

③ In determining whether to apply for subsidies for training expenses and submission of applications, the duty to verify whether training expenses are false is the Plaintiff, the employer, and whether the Defendant neglected to verify the illegal receipt of training expenses is a separate issue as to whether each of the instant dispositions is legitimate. In full view of the following circumstances and the overall purport of arguments in light of the circumstances as seen earlier before deviation from and abuse of discretionary power, each of the instant dispositions cannot be deemed to have exceeded and abused discretionary power.

① In order to achieve the purpose of the workplace skill development training course, the management and supervision of the training course should be conducted thoroughly as originally recognized, as well as the entrance management for trainees should also be conducted strictly. Therefore, it is essential for employers to properly manage the training course.

(2) The act of receiving training costs based on false evidence constitutes a serious violation that makes the purpose of the workplace skill development system clear itself, and the training costs are paid from the Employment Insurance Fund created by the national budget and the employment insurance premium, etc., and thus, if a person neglects to impose sanctions on illegal receipt, the damage will return to the worker. Therefore, it is necessary to strictly punish such illegal receipt of training costs.

③ The imposition of additional collection among the instant disposition was conducted pursuant to Article 22-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act, and the imposition of subsidies and restriction on loans was conducted pursuant to Article 22 [Attachment Table 6-2] 1-b of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. It is difficult to deem that the said criteria do not conform with the Constitution or laws in itself or that there is a reasonable ground to believe that the relevant administrative disposition is considerably unreasonable in light of the content and purport of the relevant statutes and the content of the relevant statutes

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge, the Park Judge;

Judge Senior Professor

Support for Judges

Note tin

1) D, E, F, and G, which operated the instant training institution, was prosecuted for the aforementioned criminal facts and convicted on September 25, 2013 from the Gwangju District Court.

In the above judgment, the part related to the plaintiff in the judgment was sentenced to [Maju District Court 2013 High Court 293, 346(combined)] and the crime list 8, 9 are annexed to the crime list.