(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.3.15.선고 2018구합5895 판결

Additional collection disposition in the same amount as the return disposition in the amount of 4,480,000 won that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2017 and disposition restricting loans for 330 days shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract with B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) and its employees on the part of the Plaintiff’s workplace skill development training (hereinafter referred to as “instant entrustment contract”).

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 4,480,00 from the Human Resources Development Training Service of Korea on the ground that the Plaintiff’s employee received remote training in B, a training institution, in accordance with the instant consignment contract from November 19, 2014 to January 18, 2015. The Plaintiff applied for the payment of the cost of vocational skills development training and received KRW 4,480,00 from the Human Resources Development Service of Korea. Although the Plaintiff’s employee on September 1, 2017 failed to meet the requirements for completing workplace skill development training under the Regulations on the Support of Vocational Skills Development, the Plaintiff, a business owner, received KRW 4,480,00 for the vocational skills development training for the trainees completed by fraud or other improper means, on the ground that “The Plaintiff received the subsidy of KRW 4,480,00 for the vocational skills development training for the trainees completed by the Plaintiff,” each of the instant disposition was rendered for the additional collection of the same amount as the refund of KRW 4,480,000, and limited loans (hereinafter referred to “each”).

D. On September 4, 2017, the Defendant sent the instant disposition by means of registration handling, and the Plaintiff’s employees C received the instant disposition on the 5th of the same month following the following day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Summary of the defense prior to the merits

The defendant defense that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as a lawsuit filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit.

B. Determination

1) A lawsuit seeking revocation of an administrative disposition shall be instituted within 90 days from the date the other party becomes aware of the disposition (Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act); and “the date the other party becomes aware of the existence of the disposition, etc., which is the starting point of the filing period of the lawsuit as prescribed by Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act,” refers to the date the other party becomes aware of the fact of the disposition, etc. by means of notification, public announcement, and other methods; thus, when the other party becomes aware of the existence of the administrative disposition by notifying the other party of such fact, the filing period as prescribed by Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act shall be deemed to run; and if the other party becomes aware of the disposition, such as service of the written disposition, at the domicile of the other party to the disposition, is presumed to have been aware of the disposition, unless there is any counter-proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du9742, Dec. 28, 2017>

2) Thus, upon receipt of the instant disposition on September 5, 2017 by the Plaintiff’s employee C, the instant disposition was lawfully served on the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, there is no special circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff was unaware of the instant disposition (on the first date for pleading, the Plaintiff was a person who sent the Plaintiff’s representative at the time when C, an employee of the Plaintiff, was served with the instant disposition). Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of the instant disposition around September 5, 2017. 3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 28, 2018, where 90 days have passed since the date when the Plaintiff became aware of the instant disposition, and it is apparent in the records, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as a lawsuit filed after the lapse of the filing period.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.