(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.1.17. 선고 2017구단66872 판결

1. On June 30, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of returning KRW 31,615,920 to the Plaintiff, the disposition of additionally collecting an amount equivalent to the same amount, and the disposition of restricting subsidies and loans for 360 days, all of which are revoked.

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

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, who operates a hospital B (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”), entered into an entrustment contract with C (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”) for vocational ability development training for workers pursuant to Article 24(1) of the Act on the Development of Workers’ Vocational Skills (hereinafter referred to as “Vocational Skills Development”). From that time, the Plaintiff had the instant company conduct vocational ability development training for the employees of the Plaintiff (or the instant hospital; hereinafter the same shall apply). However, the instant company entered into an entrustment contract for vocational ability development training for the amount of KRW 20,412,235 for eight times for providing additional services following the conclusion of the entrustment contract with the Plaintiff, and paid the Plaintiff the difference between the amount of the Plaintiff’s employees’ training expenses and KRW 60,412,235 for the instant company’s total expenses for vocational ability development training and KRW 20,600 for the instant company’s total expenses for vocational ability development training and KRW 20,000,000 for the instant company’s total expenses for vocational ability development training.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, entry of Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant company conducted both workplace skill development training recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor in accordance with the consignment contract with the Plaintiff’s employees, and the costs for additional services paid for the Plaintiff are only part of the profits earned by the instant company on behalf of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant company’s act of paying costs does not constitute “the case where a person, who was recognized as a workplace skill development training course under Article 24(2)4 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, has received subsidies or loans for training costs by fraud or other improper means.” Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise should be deemed unlawful as a disposition that did not have any grounds for disposition.

Even if not, in light of the overall circumstances of the instant case, the instant disposition ought to be deemed unlawful as a disposition that the Defendant deviatess from or abused its discretion, in view of the fact that the Defendant’s provision of expenses under the pretext of the supplementary service was practically conducted, and that the Plaintiff’s intentional act or gross negligence cannot be deemed to exist with respect to the state of violation of legal order, and that the Plaintiff’s damage incurred compared to the public interest to be achieved by the instant disposition

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

"False or other unlawful means" under Article 24(2)4 of the Vocational Skills Development Act refers to all acts that are not correct by social norms in order for a person who is not qualified to receive training costs to see as if he/she is qualified or to conceal the fact that he/she is not qualified, and "training costs" refers to expenses that a person entrusted with vocational skills development training receives as compensation for training (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du24764, Jul. 24, 2014).

However, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the instant company actually conducted workplace skill development training recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor in accordance with the consignment contract concluded with the Plaintiff. Thus, even if the instant company paid expenses for the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, insofar as there is no evidence to deem that the instant company was part of the workplace skill development training course to be conducted by the Plaintiff employees, the instant company cannot be deemed to have received training expenses from the State by fraud or other improper means through the payment of expenses, and the instant company merely appears to have provided the Plaintiff separate benefits arising from the conclusion of the contract by contributing part of its profits.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, without further examining the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant disposition was unlawful on a premise different from the foregoing determination.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.