(영문) 대전고등법원 2019.8.21. 선고 2019누10458 판결

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. Defendant 1’s revocation of the designation of the Master Craftsmen of Korea made on August 31, 2017 by the Minister of Employment and Labor and the revocation of the designation of the Master Craftsmen of Korea made on October 24, 2017 by the president of the Human Resources Development Service of the Republic of Korea.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this court's reasoning is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

○ 16th day of the second 16th day of the judgment of the first instance, "temporary grant of KRW 20 million" has been written with "temporary grant of KRW 20 million, insignia, certificate, name tag".

The 5th 12th 12th 12th 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is called “the engine breakout.” The 6th 3 to 5th 2th 12th 2th 12th 2th 12th 2th 2th 2006. The 6th 3rd 3 through 5th 2nd 2006. The 33th 3th 3th 2nd 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 3th 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 2nd 33th 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 3.

○ The 7th 9th 9th eth eth eth 10th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth g eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth

○ The 8th to 11th of the 11th of the 10th instance judgment shall be followed as follows. Whether the 2nd of the 2nd disposition is unlawful or not.

(A) Whether the Plaintiff’s other records constitute “a false or fraudulent method” as stipulated in Article 12(1)1 of the Act on Encouragement of Skilled Crafts

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff entered the other records concerning the improvement of the quality of vehicles as its own performance even if he/she did not directly participate in the examination. This constitutes an act recognized as unfair by social norms that may affect the decision-making on the selection of a Korean master craftsman, and constitutes "false or unlawful means" under Article 12 (1) 1 of the Act on the Encouragement of Skilled Crafts. ① The Plaintiff entered the other records concerning the improvement of the quality of vehicles in the work by dividing them into the items, “before improvement of the quality of vehicles, the causes and methods of improvement, the effect of improvement, and the result of improvement”. However, considering the Plaintiff’s role in the “tender improvement” after discovering the problems of the vehicle at the site, the part of the Plaintiff participating in the work is difficult to be considered as the part before the improvement of the quality of the Plaintiff’s product, “the Plaintiff’s report on the improvement of the quality of the vehicle at the inspection center,” and the contents of the report on the improvement of the quality of the Plaintiff’s product at the inspection center.

② In order to improve the quality of a vehicle already placed on the market, it is essential to find problems and suggest the process of 'influences' through customer margin. The defendant minister also presented 'in-house personal and divisional mediation proposals, product development, work method improvement, work curtailment, cost reduction, etc.' as an example of quality improvement performance. Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the 'in-house proposal' performance falls under 'in-house quality improvement' performance level and 'in-house quality improvement' performance level. However, the plaintiff did not include only the contents corresponding to 'in-house' performance, but entered 'in-house quality improvement' in the upper part of the map stating the cause and method of improvement, effect of improvement, and result of improvement. The plaintiff stated 'in-house name A' in the upper part of the other performance list stating the details of 'in-house quality improvement', but it is difficult to understand that the plaintiff's performance is 'in-house quality improvement proposal'. Rather, if the expression ‘in-house' is different from other performance records, it seems possible that the plaintiff plays a leading method of improvement.

③ The Defendant Minister announced the “Plan for the Selection of Master Craftsmen of the Republic of Korea in 2015” and announced the applicants to enter the relevant performance by themselves as a single performance or a joint performance, and the number of persons under the joint name in the overall title. The Defendant Minister also announced the common form that the current status of other performance at the time was arranged in the table. The Plaintiff, while preparing and submitting the other performance status in the common form, entered each item of the quality improvement in the first place in the whole form of quality. The Plaintiff stated not only the problems prior to the improvement, but also the cause, improvement, effectiveness, and result of the quality improvement in the first place of quality improvement as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff as a specialist in charge of the document review as an expert member solely carried out such quality improvement work. Even if the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff’s “Mono” in the above form was a proposal to indicate the Plaintiff’s individual performance, it was difficult to understand the details of the Plaintiff’s performance in the first place of quality improvement.

④ According to the grading criteria of Defendant Minister, other performance points are 0-1 points per item and 25 points in total. The Plaintiff received 0.4 to 0.8 points in each item of other performance. According to the witness G of this court, this is an evaluation conducted on the whole process of quality improvement as recorded on other performance. However, the “tender performance” performance is much more favorable than those of those who have worked for a long time in a large enterprise, as well as much more favorable in terms of the number of quality improvement work than those of those who have worked for a long time, and thus, it cannot be evaluated as equivalent to the value of other quality improvement work (at the time of document review and on-site inspection). Furthermore, if the Plaintiff submitted only “the Plaintiff’s performance before the improvement of documents” and “the evaluation score on other performance is 0 points”, the Plaintiff’s performance results are divided into the “the total quality improvement performance points as recorded on the basis of each item” or “the total quality improvement performance points as recorded on the basis of each item.”

⑤ The examination of documents and on-site confirmation of an applicant for the Master Crafts of the Republic of Korea shall be conducted by an expert member commissioned from among experts in the relevant field. However, since the materials for the examination of an applicant are only documents submitted by the applicant, even if the applicant states his/her non-participation in the application, the examination of documents is inevitable on the premise that the contents are true. Although it is possible for the expert member to verify the authenticity and contents through an on-site inspection of the contents submitted in documents, the on-site inspection is conducted only for the highest number of persons who have obtained 60 points or more as a result of the on-site inspection of documents, and according to the real time limit, the selection of the Master Crafts of the Republic of Korea is determined based on the first document examination process. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s other records constitute active act that may affect the decision of the expert advisor. Even if the Plaintiff’s on-site inspection of the on-site inspection of the Plaintiff, such circumstance alone does not interfere with the aforementioned judgment.

At the time of the disposition of this case, the defendant Minister presented that "the plaintiff submitted a statement of his own performance even if he did not directly participate in the quality improvement work," and argued that "the part which the plaintiff did not directly perform is recorded as his own performance" in the process of the lawsuit of this case. The plaintiff alleged that it constitutes an addition or modification of the ground for disposition which is not permissible as it is not identical with the original reason for the disposition, but it is nothing more than that of the original reason for disposition, but it cannot be deemed that the defendant Minister changed the judgment of the premise in the process of the lawsuit of this case on the premise that "the initial ground for disposition" is not included in quality improvement work. Even if the defendant Minister added or changed the ground for disposition, it is merely a different evaluation based on other contents written by the plaintiff, and therefore the identity of basic facts is recognized. The plaintiff's assertion in this part cannot be accepted.

(C) Whether the Plaintiff was selected as a Master Crafts of the Republic of Korea by fraud or other improper means, the Plaintiff obtained 0.4-0.8 points from each item of other performance by stating the entire process of improving the quality of vehicles as one’s own performance, and obtained 17.8 points in total without dividing the deliberation points of each of the above items into the number of participants. However, the Act on the Encouragement of Skilled Crafts provides that a person who contributed greatly to developing skilled crafts and enhancing the status of skilled craftsmen by engaging in the industrial site for a long time as a technician holding the highest level of skilled crafts at the industrial site shall be selected as a Master of the Republic of Korea (Articles 2 and 11). Considering the fact that any false or fraudulent act may be involved in the selection process, it is reasonable to treat the points obtained from each item of other performance by the above method as zero points. The Plaintiff’s selection of points in the Master Crafts of the Republic of Korea was based on the total number of points 90.2 points excluding other points 17.8 points obtained by the Plaintiff.

(5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed that the Plaintiff’s designation of the Master Craftsmen under Article 12(1)1 of the Act on Encouragement of Skilled Crafts constitutes “the case where the Plaintiff was selected as the Master Craftsmen of Korea by fraudulent or other unjust means” is lawful and that the Plaintiff cancelled the designation of the Master Craftsmen and ordered the return

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the â€˜the assertion of deviation from or abuse of discretionary power' (from the third to the last 15th and the last 12th eth eth eths) shall be deleted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants shall be dismissed in its entirety on the grounds that it is without merit. Since the judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants is dismissed in its entirety on the grounds that it is without merit.