(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.22. 선고 2019누31848 판결

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The disposition that the Defendants made to each of the relevant plaintiffs shall be revoked as shown in the attached Table.

Reasons

1. The part citing the judgment of the first instance

The reasoning of this court's reasoning is as follows, in addition to changing part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, it stated the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part corresponding to D Co., Ltd. of the court of first instance which did not appeal) (excluding the part corresponding to D Co., Ltd. of the court of first instance). Thus, the grounds asserted by the plaintiffs in the court of first instance pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (other grounds asserted by the plaintiffs in the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the

(a) The third and fourth instances of action are referred to as “this Court” as “the first instance court”;

(b) The 3rd 19th 19th ec. “A” means “B 1 to 23th ec.g. “B”. The 4th ec.b. “Do to the Defendant” means “do to the Defendant.”

D. The 7th sentence was pronounced and the 16th sentence was appealed to the Supreme Court (No. 2018Do 16257) but the appeal was made to the Supreme Court (No. 2018Do 16257) on November 23, 2018 and the above conviction was finalized as it is.

(e) 7 pages 4) The phrase "Nos. 61, 137, 161, and 186 (C)" in the second sentence is "No. 20, 61, 100, 137, 161, and 186 (C)".

F. The following is added between conduct 10, 12 and 13. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that: (a) some of the instant trainees has faithfully performed training courses; (b) it is practically impracticable to specify those trainees; (c) but (d) it is unlawful to order the Plaintiffs to return the full amount of the subsidies received by the Plaintiffs in consideration of the amount of unfair payment.

However, as seen earlier, G’s employees visited the place of business of a transportation company that entrusted workplace skill development training without providing trainees with relevant teaching materials, and made trainees appear as if they meet the standards for completing distance training by means of putting a training course on behalf of trainees, and did not properly check whether the instant trainees meet the standards for completing distance training at their workplace without raising any particular problem in the training course conducted in the above manner, and the Plaintiffs did not properly check whether they met the standards for completing the training course at their workplace. In light of the above, it is recognized that the instant trainees did not normally undergo training by the above improper means, and there is no other evidence supporting that the instant trainees met the standards for completing the training course by faithfully implementing the training course among the instant trainees.”

(g) at the bottom of 12, "the defendant" in paragraph 3 is "for the defendant".

H. The following contents are added between the 13th and 6th. The Plaintiffs believe that “The Plaintiffs are believed to faithfully conduct education and training by G, which is an educational institution regularly permitted by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and is merely a victim used in the act of defraudation training expenses of G, and the occurrence of this case is a supervisory institution that has granted authorization for remote training in G and did not properly manage and supervise it, but the Defendants’ negligence by the Ministry of Employment and Labor or the Human Resources Development Service of Korea, which is a supervisory institution that did not properly conduct the management and supervision, on the part of the Plaintiffs, should only be subject to the disposition of additional collection and restriction on subsidies and loans, in addition to the disposition of return of illegally received amount.

However, prior to applying for subsidies under the Vocational Skills Development Act as the subject of occupational ability development training and the subject of occupational ability development training, the Plaintiffs neglected to verify whether the instant trainees met the completion standards for receiving subsidies, and even if they have relied on G’s opinion that the Plaintiffs were fully responsible for and implemented the training course, it is difficult to deem that such circumstance alone constitutes a justifiable cause not attributable to the Plaintiffs’ failure to cause the Plaintiffs’ failure to perform their duties. Furthermore, as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs appears to have recognized the fact of failure or unjust receipt in the course of receiving the instant training and subsidies. As such, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed a simple victim of fraud, and even if the Ministry of Employment and Labor or the Industrial Manpower Corporation failed to properly manage and supervise G as alleged by the Plaintiffs, it cannot be justified for the Plaintiffs’ failure to deny the Plaintiffs’ wrongful receipt of occupational ability development training subsidies, and the need for strict sanctions is also difficult. In such case, in light of the fact that it would be difficult to expect the effectiveness of sanctions where only the amount equivalent to the subsidies paid to the Plaintiffs would be returned, it cannot be deemed to violate the principle of excessive collection and payment of subsidies.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims in this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, all of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.