2011Guhap13225 Revocation of revocation of the decision to collect vocational ability development training costs

A Stock Company

The head of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

March 26, 2014

April 16, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition to recover training costs of KRW 2,605,770 against the plaintiff on August 17, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 6, 2008, the Plaintiff recognized the project management process (hereinafter “instant training course”) from the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office, and conducted workplace skill development training for 58 workers, respectively, from March 8, 2008 to March 29, 2008, and from April 5, 2008 to April 26, 2008.B. On August 27, 2010, the Board of Audit and Inspection reported completion of the instant training course to the Plaintiff’s attendance and completion of the training program, and confirmed that the Plaintiff received training expenses for 1,067,808 won from the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office on September 22, 2008 (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20651, Aug. 27, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 20651, Aug. 29, 2018).

D. Meanwhile, on August 29, 2013, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality that Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act contravenes the principle of comprehensive prohibition (2011Hun-Ba390).

E. On October 23, 2013, the Defendant revoked the instant disposition ex officio.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 2, 3 evidence, Eul's 1 to 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

If an administrative disposition is revoked ex officio, the disposition becomes null and void, and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006).

As seen in the background of the above disposition, the defendant revoked the disposition of this case during the continuation of the lawsuit of this case, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful. However, the lawsuit costs are assessed against the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

3. Conclusion

If so, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, senior judge and senior secretary general

Judges Kim Gung-dong

The chief of judge;