2018Gudan12351 Revocation of Recognition and Disposition of Restrictions on Entrustment and Recognition

A

Law Firm Tae-tae et al.

Attorney Lee Chang-hee

The Director General of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office

May 22, 2019

June 5, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The revocation of recognition made by the Defendant on August 31, 2018 by the Plaintiff on August 31, 2018, and both the entrustment of and restriction on recognition, revocation of recognition, and six-month entrustment and restriction on recognition of the relevant process shall be revoked.

1. Summary of disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “C” in Jinju-si, was a person operating a vocational training institution, and was paid training expenses in question for the total of 60 days, 3 hours per day, and 11 trainees from March 10, 2015 to June 5, 2015.

B. On August 31, 2018, the Defendant issued a false attendance and processing as if the Plaintiff had worked in a 'E' restaurant located in Jinju from January 5, 2015 to December 17, 2016, and received training expenses from the Plaintiff (i.e., payment of training expenses) and three months (from September 1, 2018 to November 30, 2018) (i.e., cancellation of recognition as to the supply and demand of training expenses) and three months (from September 1, 2018 to November 30, 2018), and (ii) six months (in relation to the entrustment and settlement management) and six months (from September 1, 2018 to December 17, 2016 to May 31, 2019).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 9, Eul evidence 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

D stated that the Plaintiff was working at a restaurant during the training period by filing a false report on the delayed payment of wages against the cafeteria representative. However, since the Plaintiff did not falsely open and manage the cafeteria, the grounds for disposition are not recognized. Even if the Plaintiff was found to have falsely opened and managed the cafeteria, this is the Plaintiff’s failure to open and manage the cafeteria, and the degree of the violation is insignificant as the training was implemented, and thus, the instant disposition constitutes deviation and abuse of discretionary authority.

B. Determination

(1) A trustee claims training expenses that should not be paid if he/she claimed training fees by violating the law or contractual obligations on the management of the attendance of trainees even though he/she did not undergo training on the ground of disposition. Thus, even if he/she knew that he/she did not undergo training, he/she would not have been paid training expenses, he/she should be viewed as "any other unlawful means" (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du377, Jun. 13, 2013). In this case, he/she could not be found to have been subject to criminal punishment for his/her attendance from 0 days to 1, 2, 3, 5 to 14, and 10 days during his/her attendance at a 0-day restaurant, and that he/she could not be found to have been subject to criminal punishment for his/her attendance from 10 days to 170 days during his/her attendance at a 3-day restaurant.

(2) With respect to deviation from and abuse of discretionary power, vocational ability development training is conducted by limited financial resources, such as the budget and the Employment Insurance Fund under the Employment Insurance Act, and the public interest is considerably high to promote the employment security of workers, the enhancement of social and economic status, and the improvement of corporate productivity due to the instant disposition. In particular, in order to achieve the purpose of vocational ability development training and to prevent the unfair claim for training expenses, the entry management for trainees should be thoroughly conducted, as well as the entry management for trainees is likely to undermine the foundation of the vocational ability development training system itself, even if it is possible to take a mitigated measure, and in light of the above circumstances, it does not necessarily have to take a mitigated measure, even if it is possible to take a reduced measure, and in light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff is recognized to have operated directly D's pass card with a false or to have recognized at least false withdrawal, and thus, it is difficult to deem the instant disposition to have been abused or abused.

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-won