logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.11.27 2017구단78462
부정수급액반환처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Training expenses for the training period for the name of a taxi driver on December 1, 2014 during the contract-related period, the number of trainees on December 1, 2014; and KRW 8,456,00 on February 16, 2015, KRW 8,456,000 on December 17, 2014; and KRW 7,759,600 on October 22, 2015, during the process of improving the duties of taxi drivers from November 6, 2015 to January 5, 2016;

A. The Plaintiff, as a company running the taxi passenger vehicle transport business, concluded an entrustment contract with B or C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “D”), which is a company recognized as a worker’s workplace skill development training course, for employees belonging to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant training”), by means of remote training for employees belonging to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant training”), as follows:

B. The Plaintiff applied for subsidies for training expenses to the Human Resources Development Service of Korea on the premise that the stated number of trainees (hereinafter “instant trainees”) in the table below among the above trainees (hereinafter “instant trainees”) had completed the instant training normally and met the standards for completing postal distance training subsidies, and received subsidies for training expenses from the said Corporation in total of KRW 15,268,240 as follows.

The total amount of KRW 15,268,240, 137, 137, 137, 27, 272,00 on April 2, 2015, 201, 23, 93, 23, 7,596, 240 on February 23, 2016, shall be 15,268,240, 240.

C. On September 4, 2017, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that “this case trainees did not undergo the instant training and failed to meet the completion standards; (b) filed an application for subsidies for training expenses with the Human Resources Development Service of Korea; and (c) received payment,” the Defendant: (a) Article 55(2) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 13902, Jan. 27, 2016; hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development Act”); and (c) Article 55(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development

arrow