(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.1.23.선고 2017구단50758 판결

1. On May 22, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of returning KRW 1,188,080 and the amount additionally collected, as well as KRW 1,188,080, the Defendant’s disposition of restricting loans for 240 days from the date of the disposition is revoked.

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

3.(2) Of the dispositions listed in paragraph (1), the enforcement of a restrictive measure on subsidization and financing for 240 days from the date of the disposition shall be suspended until the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive.

Purport of claim

The text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Upon recognition by the Minister of Employment and Labor of workplace skill development training courses for workers pursuant to Article 24(1) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development Act”), the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract for workplace skill development training (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”) with Emnidi (hereinafter “the instant training institution”), and had the instant training institution conduct workplace skill development training such as “key duties for hospital employees” (hereinafter “instant training”) for the Plaintiff’s employees from September 2015 to December 2016.

B. The Seoul Western District Office received information that the instant training institution is conducting illegal training, such as the offering of rebates, and conducted an inspection on the instant training institution, etc., the Seoul Western District Office discovered that the instant training institution offered substitute payments (hereinafter “instant supplementary services”) equivalent to KRW 4,906,00 for the Plaintiff’s officers and employees’ workshop rental fees for the instant consignment contract, and notified the Defendant of the fact.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) on May 22, 2017, issued a refund of the illegally received amount of KRW 1,188,080, additional collection disposition equivalent to the same amount, and disposition of restriction on subsidies and loans for 240 days from the date of the disposition (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”) on the premise that the instant additional service cost that the instant training institution paid by the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff constitutes “the case where the Plaintiff received subsidies for training expenses by false or other unlawful means” under Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act, Articles 55 and 56 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, and Article 22 [Attachment Table 6-2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 13 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The non-existence of grounds for disposition

In light of all the circumstances, including that the Plaintiff, like other public institutions and business owners, provided the instant supplementary services costs in consultation with the instant training institution, openly and transparently, and that the Plaintiff’s employees fulfilled all the training courses recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor, and that the instant supplementary services costs are merely expenses incurred by the instant training institution in addition to the provision of the instant training course, it is difficult to evaluate the Plaintiff as “cases where the Plaintiff received subsidies for the instant supplementary services from the instant training institution by fraud or other improper means.” Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful because there is no ground for disposition.

2) The assertion of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

Even if there are grounds for disposition, in light of all the circumstances such as the fact that the Plaintiff is practically unable to provide vocational education and training due to the disposition of this case, thereby being subject to a second unfavorable disposition under the Vocational Skills Development Act, and that the Defendant is taking the disposition only against five enterprises including the Plaintiff, and that it is taking the disposition, the disposition of this case is unlawful because it is so harsh that it is so excessive that it has exceeded and abused discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the non-existence of grounds for disposition

"False or other unlawful means" under Articles 24(2)2, 55(2)1, and 56(2) and 56(3)2 of the Vocational Skills Development Act refers to all affirmative and passive acts that may affect the decision-making on the payment of training costs, in general, are all acts that are not correct under the social norms to see that a person who is not eligible to receive training costs has the qualifications or to conceal the fact that he/she is not qualified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du24764, Jul. 24, 2014).

With respect to this case, the entrustment contract for vocational skills development between health team and the entrusted training institution with the employer, etc. is deemed to have a significant public responsibility different from a contract between private persons in view of the fact that the Employment Insurance Fund is supported by the Employment Insurance Fund. However, the act of receiving preferential treatment under the pretext of additional services is likely to cause side effects such as undermining the quality of vocational skills development training. However, the following circumstances revealed by the content and legal principles of vocational skills development Acts and subordinate statutes, the evidence as seen earlier, and the entire purport of oral argument are as follows: (i) strict interpretation and application of administrative laws and regulations, which serve as the basis of aggressive administrative disposition, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the other party to the administrative disposition; (ii) "the vocational ability development legislation" or "other improper means" means any act that is not justifiable in terms of social norms, or that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to receive some training expenses from the training institution to receive training expenses of this case, not the Plaintiff to receive training expenses of this case.

2) Sub-committee

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful without examining the remaining arguments of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion disputing this issue is with merit.

3. Suspension of execution.

According to the records of this case, among the dispositions of this case, there is no evidence that the execution of â€˜(2)-day-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-of-day-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-period-of-

4. Conclusion

Therefore, we decide to accept the plaintiff's claim of this case and decide as per Disposition.