2016Nu71784 Business operators' disposition, etc. to refund unlawful receipt of training expenses for entrusted training

Revocation

A Stock Company

The Head of Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Gudan52128 decided October 17, 2016

April 7, 2017

May 12, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. On January 18, 2016, the defendant revoked the disposition of returning KRW 34,006,410, and additionally collecting KRW 34,006,410, the amount of unlawful payment of training expenses entrusted by the business owner against the plaintiff on January 18, 2016.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance which adds the following reasons for the judgment. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

The portion added "....... (7) No. 12 of the 4th 12 "No. (8)" was added to "A.8" of the 5th 1st 1st 1st e.g., "the plaintiff's 168 employee of the plaintiff's company submitted to the president of the Human Resources Development Service of Korea on January 6, 2014" added the following reasons for the decision as follows: "However, the plaintiff completed the A.Eth e. (168 employee of the plaintiff's company submitted to the president of the Human Resources Development Service of Korea on January 6, 2014, the plaintiff's 168 employee of the plaintiff's e.g., the foreign exchange bank account of the plaintiff's 7,641,378 won for the payment of training expenses." The plaintiff's e.g., the 159 employee of the plaintiff's e., the 33th e., the 360th e.

The following reasons are added to the "...... progress" of the 5th 12th 12th , ".............". The plaintiff's statement that "the plaintiff entrusted Esciring B with telephone response, sexual harassment education and personal information education, etc." to the defendant's employee on October 1, 2015, and that "the 4th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th 2015.)".

The following reasons should be added to the "........." of Part 6.17. The following reasons for the judgment are added.....................) the Defendant was eight companies including the Plaintiff, which was discovered through the inspection of the training institution of this case around July 28, 2015.

The plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable with this conclusion. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge Kim Gung-jin

Judges Kim Gung-sung

Judges Dokwon Line

1) The Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the lawsuit on the part of the “request for the revocation of a restriction on support and loan” from January 1, 2016 to January 12, 2016.