(영문) 대구지방법원 상주지원 2013.1.16. 선고 2012가단586 판결

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 41,79,200 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of the complaint to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

On November 27, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) completed the report on the establishment of the G Education Center located in Yongsan-si B; and (b) on December 2, 2009, the Plaintiff’s first class six courses from the Defendant for caregiver (day, night, career group, social worker group, nurse group, and nurse group of physical clinic) were approved pursuant to Article 24 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers; (b) notified the Defendant of the fact that the Plaintiff did not comply with the above provision on 10 teaching materials, including D and 111 trainees, at the time of failing to comply with the above provision on 10 teaching materials; and (c) on July 26, 2010, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the above provision on 10 teaching materials and 20 teaching materials; (d) notified the Defendant of the fact that the Plaintiff did not comply with the above provision on 10 teaching materials, such as the instruction and inspection guidelines.

2. Determination

(a) Acts and subordinate statutes and public notice enforced at the time;

Article 21 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (Support for Autonomous Workplace Skill Development)

(1) The Minister of Labor may provide workers with subsidies or loans for the following expenses in order to support workers' autonomous vocational skills development:

1. Fees for taking workplace skill development training courses recognized by the Minister of Labor under Article 24;

(3) Matters necessary for requirements, details, procedures, levels, and preferential support for subsidies or loans under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

- Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (Support for Autonomous Workplace Skill Development)

(3) Articles 43 through 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act shall apply to subsidies, loans, preferential support, etc. for expenses incurred by workers under Article 21 of the Act.

- Article 43 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (support for workers’ taking lectures);

(1) The Minister of Labor may, when an insured person falling under any of the following subparagraphs takes workplace skill development training under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter referred to as "workplace skill development training") at his/her own expense, fully or partially subsidize necessary expenses as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor:

(3) Necessary matters concerning the scope of training courses eligible for subsidies for training expenses under paragraph (1) and procedures for subsidizing them shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor.

- Article 61 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (Support for Workers’ Attending Courses)

(1) A person eligible to receive a subsidy for workers' taking courses pursuant to Article 43 (1) of the Decree shall be a person who has completed a training course recognized by the Minister of Labor, which meets the following requirements:

(6) Matters necessary for the procedures, etc. for recognizing training courses eligible for subsidies for workers' taking courses under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be determined by the Minister of Labor.

- Article 24 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (Recognition of Workplace Skill Development Training Courses)

(1) A person who intends to conduct workplace skill development training for which workers may receive subsidies or loans for training costs pursuant to Article 21 (1) 1 shall obtain recognition from the Minister of Labor for the workplace skill development training course.

(2) Matters necessary for the scope, requirements, details, validity, etc. of workplace skill development training courses under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

- Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers

(2) Details of workplace skill development training courses under Article 24 of the Act shall be as follows:

1. Name and location of the facility or institution, and the name of the recognized person (-);

2. Name of the vocational ability development training course, details of training, training period, training hours, training methods and places;

3. Date of recognition.

(3) Recognition of workplace skill development training courses by the Minister of Labor under Article 24 of the Act shall take effect for one year from the date of recognition.

(4) Necessary matters concerning procedures for recognition of workplace skill development training courses shall be determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor.

Article 8 (Application, etc. for Recognition of Workplace Skill Development Training Courses)

(2) A person who intends to obtain recognition of workplace skill development training courses pursuant to Article 24 of the Act and Article 22 of the Decree shall submit an application for recognition (---) of workplace skill development training courses in attached Form 2 to the head of a local labor office, the head of a branch office, or the head of a branch office (hereinafter referred to as "head of a local labor office") having jurisdiction over the location of the main place where the workplace skill development training courses are conducted, along with all of the

(4) Where an application under paragraphs (2) and (3) is deemed reasonable, the head of a local labor office shall notify the applicant of the result thereof by giving notice of recognition of workplace skill development training courses (--) in attached Form 3 by not later than the date the training courses are commenced or scheduled

[Specialized Amendment 209.4.1]

- Enforcement Rule of the Workers' Vocational Skills Development Act (report on the status of workplace skill development training)

(1) Those who have obtained recognition of training courses pursuant to Article 24 of the Act shall report the following matters to the Minister of Labor by the period determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Labor pursuant to Article 40 (1) and (3) of the Act:

1. The number of trainees based on the academic background, age, and gender of trainees;

2. The actual training personnel and the approved number according to the types, methods, courses, period, and types of training;

3. The number of employees and the number of successful candidates;

4. Other matters determined and announced by the Minister of Labor.

[Specialized Amendment 2009.4.1] Article 8 of the Regulations on Assistance for Autonomous Workplace Skill Development of Workers (Public Notice No. 2009-65 of Ministry of Labor) (Recognition of Training Courses)

(1) The recognition of a training course is valid for one year from the date of recognition, and where the same course recognized is repeated, it shall be reported to trainees, etc. and it shall not be re-designated.

Article 9 (Procedures, etc. for Recognition of Training Courses)

(1) Any person who intends to obtain recognition of a training course shall prepare an application for recognition of an autonomous workplace skill development training course for workers in attached Form 3 and submit it to the head of an employment security office having jurisdiction over the location of the principal place where the training course is held, and enter (in such cases, the submission of an implementation plan for autonomous workplace skill development training course in attached Form 4 shall be omitted) in the workplace skill development training information network (HD-

(4) Upon receipt of an application for taking a training course, a training institution shall enter (in such cases, the submission of a written report shall be omitted) the relevant training course into the information network for workplace skill development training (HR-Net) by the date the training is commenced, along with a report on the implementation of autonomous workplace skill development training courses by workers in attached Form 6.

Article 12-2 (Report on Status, etc. of Training Execution)

(1) A person who has obtained recognition of a workplace skill development training course pursuant to Article 24 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers shall report the following matters to the head of the competent regional labor office who has recognized the workplace skill development training course pursuant to Article 40 of the same Act

1. Report on the implementation of training in attached Form 6 (the list of trainees, training schedule, and documents related to confirmation as to whether trainees are qualified for training): By the commencement date of training: Provided, That where the training period is at least 30 days, it shall be reported within seven days after the commencement of training;

2. A report on a person who has completed a training in attached Form 7: By 14 days from the end date of the training: Provided, That Internet remote training shall be conducted within 30 days from the end date of the training;

Article 15 (Procedures for Granting Subsidies for Exemplary of Workers)

(1) A trainee who has completed a training course under Article 7 shall submit an application for the payment of subsidies for workers' lecture in attached Form 60 of the Rule to the head of an employment security office having jurisdiction over his/her residence or the location of the training institution, along with evidential documents, within 30 days from the completion date of the relevant training course: Provided, That where the same training course has been completed at the same training institution, the relevant maritime training institution may submit an application for the payment of subsidies for workers' training under attached Form 6-2 to the head of an employment security office after obtaining the power

(2) A training institution shall, within 30 days after the completion of the training course, confirm a person who completed the training course from among those subject to a report on the training, enter such person into the HD-Net, and submit a copy of the status of receipt of tuition fees in attached Form 7 (general and foreign language courses)--- and 9 to the head of the competent employment security office.

(3) The head of an employment security office who has received an application under paragraph (1) shall verify whether a trainee completes the training course and the fact of paying training expenses, determine whether to pay subsidies within ten days and notify the applicant of the result thereof.

(b)Any of the following facts may be admitted, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, each of the statements in Gap evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-6, and witness E and F.

(1) On December 10, 2009, the Plaintiff received six copies of each application for recognition of the autonomous workplace skill development training course for workers (attached Form 3) and each written training implementation plan (Public Notice No. 4) to the Defendant’s permanent branch office of the Daegu District Labor Office.

(2) On December 16, 2009, E, which had a person in charge at the time of the permanent residence office, had conducted on-site inspection at the Plaintiff’s education center and confirmed the Plaintiff’s training facilities and equipment, training courses, teaching materials, training instructors, training period and time, number of classes, completion standards, completion standards, tuition fees, etc., and prepared a copy of the next day.

(3) On December 22, 2009, the Administrator of the Permanent Residence Office notified the Plaintiff of recognition of the occupational ability development training course for the above six courses as follows.

A review of the application on December 10, 2009 submitted by the Hawon on the application of the Hawon was conducted, and it was notified that the 1st caregiver course was recognized as satisfying all the requirements under Articles 24 and 22 of the Workers' Vocational Skills Development Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and that the report on the implementation of the training was entered into the Information Network for Workplace Skill Development Training (HR-Net) by the beginning date of the training by attaching one copy of the training hours table, and it was the main time of the training. Furthermore, the main time of the training is the compliance with the relevant laws and regulations and the decision-making management during the training period, referring to the following matters: the number and number of classes and compliance, whether the training period and time are observed (time and termination of the training period), whether the training course is voluntarily changed, whether the training school site or voluntarily changed, whether the training school is approved, whether the training school is duly authorized or not, whether the training is subject to the refund of the law, whether the training is proper or not.

(4) When some media, including G Press articles (H) on February 19, 2010, reported the contents related to the illegal receipt of vocational training costs, the Defendant’s headquarters presented to the head of each regional labor office on February 26, 2010, a letter of official document (I) stating that the Defendant’s headquarters, on February 26, 2010, submitted to the head of each regional labor office a written public notice that “the case of illegal receipt of training costs, including on-site training costs, applied for an on-site training fee including on-site training costs, such as the content of the inspection, in particular, the content of the inspection.”

(5) On February 23, 2010, the permanent branch office of the Ministry of Labor decided to conduct a special guidance inspection against the subject of supervision extracted based on the status of recognition of training courses among them (as training institutions within the jurisdiction of the permanent branch office, the Plaintiff’s education center of the Plaintiff was 52 at 8th 52th ) from April 1, 2010 to April 9, 2010.

(6) On April 6, 2010, F and J, at the time, visited the Plaintiff’s Educational Institute to conduct special guidance and supervision, and, in the event of the Plaintiff, prepared a letter of name stating that training expenses for the previous courses include on-the-job training expenses and teaching materials expenses, and that subsequent measures, such as recovery of training expenses, are scheduled in accordance with the Guidelines for Special Inspection of the Institute of Care and Care.

(7) On May 3, 2010, the permanent branch office sent to the Plaintiff an official letter stating that “The main time is M&C by submitting to the Plaintiff by October 7, 2010 according to the training courses for caregivers attached to an institution for caregivers (including four classes of training courses, training period from December 22, 2009 to May 4, 2010; the number of trainees and 85 trainees who are provided with the tuition fees and training expenses from among the 85 trainees who are provided with the tuition fees are different from the attached Form 6 and the attached Form 6).”

(8) On September 17, 2010, the Plaintiff sent to the permanent branch office of permanent residence an employment insurance request (K) related to employment insurance affairs with the content that the Plaintiff will deal with by referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring to referring

(9) On the day, the Defendant sent a reply to the Plaintiff regarding the refund of the workers' lecture allowance (L) with the content that all processes are excluded from those eligible for employment insurance refund due to the failure of the relevant law, such as failing to comply with other training implementation reports and the report of the person who completed the training in accordance with the public notice of the above Ministry of Labor.

C. Determination

In full view of the purport of each statement, evidence No. 3 and evidence No. 20, it is clear that the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, provided 111 trainees with actual education and obtained a full-time caregiver license. However, even after completing the recognition of training courses effective for a period of one year in the above-mentioned relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or the public notice enacted pursuant to its delegation, the Plaintiff, at the latest, shall file a report on the implementation of training within 7 days from the date of opening the training, and the completion report within 14 days from the completion date of each course, shall be made in the prescribed form. Ultimately, the purpose of the Plaintiff’s provision is to ensure that education is appropriate for improving the vocational ability of the workers who have completed the education subject to support, i.e., the goal of the policy aimed at improving the vocational ability of the workers who have completed the education subject to support, but to this end, the enforcement process, such as guidance, inspection, etc., to secure the completion of the training period prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes against the trainees may be limited to the relevant administrative authority.

At the time of recognition of the above training course, the defendant sent a detailed notice of this purport to the plaintiff's office, and the implementation thereof was easy by accessing the computer network at the plaintiff's office at a time, as stated in the notice. Although the plaintiff asserts that the defendant directly collected necessary data at a level that can replace the guidance inspection and the report on the execution of training several times, there is no other evidence to recognize the fact that the defendant, which focuses on the confirmation of the training course and the control of the special type of illegal receipt and demand, and according to the testimony of the above witness, the regular guidance inspection on a quarterly basis is conducted only against the training institution that reported the execution of training, so there is no regular guidance and inspection for the plaintiff's education center, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the report on the execution of training was made only for the purpose of regulating the special guidance personnel, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the report on the execution of training was made at the latest.

Ultimately, the plaintiff, as to applying for recognition of training courses and attaching training plans, = a report on the implementation of training courses (attached Form 6), = a report on the completion of training (attached Form 9) and an application for refund by proxy (attached Form 6-2) in the procedure conducted in accordance with the order of a report on the completion of training (attached Form 7) and a report on the completion of training, thereby making the defendant lose an opportunity to conduct a guidance during the course of training by omitting a report or a report on the two stages before and after conducting training. This directly damages the purport of the above Act and subordinate statutes and the notice as seen earlier, even if the defendant did not cancel the recognition of the course as alleged by the plaintiff, it cannot be said that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to permit the repayment of training expenses for training conducted by the trainee.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.