2011Guhap2592 Revocation of administrative disposition, etc.

Korea Railroad Corporation

1. The Commissioner of the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Agency;

2. The head of Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office having jurisdiction over the site.

October 26, 2011

December 7, 2011

1. On March 23, 2011, the head of the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office revokes an order to return each subsidy of KRW 88,968,290 on March 23, 201 by Defendant Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office and the head of the Incheon Regional Employment and Labor Office of KRW 9,872,230 on March 22, 201.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 4, 2008, the Plaintiff conducted a training course for B-person in charge of occupational ability development (C and 1) from February 5, 2008 to February 29, 2008 (1) from February 25, 2008; (2) from February 12, 2008 to February 25, 2008; (3) from February 14, 2008 to February 2008 to February 26, 2008; and (4) from February 26, 2008 to February 26, 2008; and (3) from February 26, 2008 to 30 hours from May 5 to 2008; and (4) the above 3rd E-E training course is recognized as a training course of occupational ability development (amended by the former Workers' Training Act No. 20138, Feb. 16, 2008; 2013.

B. On March 18, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application with the head of the Gyeonggi District Labor Office for the subsidization of training costs for B (the first training number of 9) training courses including the instant training courses. On March 24, 2008, the head of the Gyeonggi District Labor Office paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 14,364,600 as training costs. Of the above training courses, the training costs of this case are KRW 4,93,298, and among them, the training costs of this case were included KRW 145,097, which are training costs for the trainees who were the head of the Busan District Labor Office at the time of the Plaintiff, for 20.8 days, the Board of Audit and Inspection and the Ministry of Employment and Labor conducted the training course of this case for 20 days from August 20, 2010, and notified the head of the Gyeonggi District Labor Administration of the list of trainees who entered the training course overseas to 20.28 days from the date of the instant study.

D. Around March 21, 2011, the head of the Gyeonggi-do branch office of the Korea Employment and Labor Agency: (a) rendered a disposition to revoke the instant training course pursuant to Article 25 of the Vocational Skills Development Act and Article 35 of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “Employment Insurance Act”); (b) on the grounds that the recognition limitation of the training course; (c) on the instant training course for one year (from March 21, 201 to March 20, 2012); (d) on the grounds that the Plaintiff completed the normal completion of training with respect to trainees who did not participate in the training courses; and (d) on the grounds that the subsidies were paid by false or other unlawful means; and (d) on the grounds that the subsidies were returned to Plaintiff’s branch office from March 21, 201 to March 20, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the subsidies”).

E. On March 22, 2011, the Defendants decided to receive subsidies, etc. granted to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Daejeon Headquarters, Daejeon Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Rolling Guns, and Chungcheong branch, etc. for one year from the date of receipt of the above No.44 of the preceding disposition. Defendant Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Administration ordered the Plaintiff to return KRW 8,968,290 in total, KRW 9,872,230 in total, and KRW 9,872, and 230 in total (hereinafter “instant first disposition”) from the date of receipt of the No.443, Mar. 22, 2011 (hereinafter “each disposition in common”; and hereinafter “each ground of recognition”). 【No dispute’s evidence No.2, No. 12, No. 31, and evidence No. 3-1, and evidence No.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that each of the dispositions of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner for the following reasons.

1) Since D’s inclusion in training expenses in the subject of the instant training course is merely an administrative error due to the failure of the E’s first responsible officer to perform the pertinent work at the time, it was not intended to receive training expenses in a false or other unlawful manner, each of the instant dispositions based on this premise is unlawful.

2) Even if D’s inclusion in training costs is false or other unlawful means, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful for the following reasons.

A) It is reasonable to interpret that a restriction on support under Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is not a period already supported, but a restriction on the support of 'Woo' to the future. Nevertheless, it is invalid as it goes beyond the limit of delegation by the mother law to the effect that Article 56(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21015, Sep. 18, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act") provides that "the Minister of Labor shall not pay subsidies, etc. for one year from the date of receipt of subsidies, etc., and shall order the return of subsidies, etc., paid during the period of restriction on payment." Therefore, it is unlawful as it is based not only on the scope of interpretation of Article 35(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, but also on the basis of Article 56(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act.

B) Each provision of the relevant laws and regulations on the scope of the return of subsidies should be interpreted limited to “the return of the amount subsidized by the relevant fraudulent or other unlawful means.” Thus, in this case, the scope of the return should be limited to training expenses (16,248,910 won) paid by the branch office A of the Plaintiff to the head of the Gyeonggi-gu Office of Employment and Labor in relation to the instant training courses. Accordingly, each disposition of the instant case ordering the return of subsidies to the extent that the instant training courses and the portion not related to the instant training courses are unlawful.

C) In light of the background leading up to the application for training costs of vocational skills development in the instant case and the fact that the amount of training costs erroneously subsidized is a small amount compared to the total subsidies, each disposition in the instant case is unlawful by deviating from the scope of discretion or abusing discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

First of all, each of the dispositions of this case is a disposition that the plaintiff constitutes "person who has received training expenses for vocational skills development by fraudulent or other illegal means" pursuant to Article 35 (1) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 56 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. We examine whether the plaintiff falls under this case.

"False or other unlawful means" as defined in each of the above provisions means any unlawful act conducted in order to conceal the eligibility of a person who is generally not eligible to receive vocational skills development training or the lack of eligibility to receive training costs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du2270, Sept. 5, 2003; 2004Du6105, Oct. 27, 2006; 2007Du16984, Mar. 30, 200; 2006Du4272, Jun. 11, 2009).

그런데, 갑 제5 내지 14, 24, 25호증, 을가 제1, 2호증, 을나 제4호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 보면, ① 이 사건 훈련과정과 관련하여 훈련계획 수립 및 훈련비용 지원신청 등 업무를 담당한 E은 원래 원고 산하 A지사에서 기록물 관리, 보안 등 직업능력개발 훈련과정 업무와는 전혀 다른 업무를 담당하다가 2008. 1. 14.경에 이르러서야 직업능력개발 훈련과정 업무를 담당하게 되었던 사실, ② D은 2008. 2. 15.부터 2008. 2, 26.까지 연차유급휴가를 사용하여 해외여행을 다녀왔는데, D과 함께 이 사건 훈련과정의 훈련생 명단에 포함되어 있던 F은 D의 부탁이 없었음에도 호의로 출석부에 훈련시간 5일 중 2008. 2. 14., 2008. 2. 15., 2008. 2. 20., 2008. 2. 21. 총 4일간 D이 출석한 것처럼 D을 대신하여 서명한 사실, ③ 이 사건 훈련과정에서 D은 5일 중 4일만 출석하였다는 이유로 출석부상 '미수료' 내지 '미이수'로 처리되었고, 교육수 료자 알림 문서의 수료자명단에도 불포함되었으나, 다만 훈련수료자보고 명단에 포함되어 있었던 사실, A B 담당자반(C, 제1기) 과정의 훈련생은 총 102명이었고 그 중 5일 미만으로 출석한 자(미수료자)는 총 4명이었는데, E은 이 사건 훈련과정 종료 후 직업능력개발정보망 HRD-Net 행정지원시스템에 미수료자 중 유일하게 D만을 포함하여 총 99명을 B 담당자반(C, 제1기) 수료자로 입력(훈련과정 종료 후 훈련생 중 미수료자를 체크하는 방식으로 하게 되어 있다)하고 이에 따라 위 99명에 대한 직업능력개발 훈련비용 지원신청서를 작성하여 중부지방고용노동청 경기지청장에게 제출한 사실, ⑤ 한편, D은 2008. 3. 25.부터 2008. 4. 18.까지 실시된 제2기 B 담당자반 과정을 수료한 후 2008. 4. 21. B 담당자증을 수령한 사실 등을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실 및 앞서 본 처분의 경위에 비추어 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① E이 이 사건 훈련과정의 출석부를 고의로 조작한 것으로 보이지 아니하고, 다만 위 출석부에 F이 선의로 D 대신 서명한 것을 알아채지 못한 것으로 보이는 점, ② 출석부에 D이 '미이 수'로 기재되어 있거나, 교육수료자 알림 문서의 수료자명단에도 불포함되어 있으며, 직업능력개발정보망 HRD-Net 행정지원시스템에 미수료자 4명 중 유일하게 D만이 수료자로 포함되어 있는 등의 사정에 비추어 보더라도, D을 포함하여 훈련비용 지원신청을 한 것은 E의 착오로 인하여 발생한 결과인 것으로 보이는 점, ③ E에게 D의 출석 여부 및 이 사건 훈련과정 수료자 해당 여부를 면밀히 체크하지 못한 과실은 있는 것으로 보이나, 그러한 과실이 '지급받을 자격을 가장하거나 지급받을 자격이 없음 등을 감추기 위하여 행하는 일체의 부정행위'에 해당한다고 할 수 없는 점, ④ D은 원고가 이 사건 훈련과정과 관련한 훈련비용을 지급받은 직후인 2008. 3. 25.부터 2008. 4. 18.까지 실시된 B 담당자반(제2기) 과정을 마쳤는데, 위 훈련과정과 관련하여서는 앞서의 이 사건 훈련과정에서와 같이 직업능력개발법 및 고용보험법 각 규정에 근거하여 훈련비용을 지원받을 수 있는 것인바, 원고에게 굳이 다른 시기에 같은 내용의 훈련과정을 이수하더라도 동일한 금액의 훈련비용을 지원받을 수 있는 D을 굳이 이 사건 훈련과정에 포함시킬 동기가 없어 보이는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 훈련과정과 관련하여 원고가 '거짓이나 그 밖의 부정한 방법으로 직업능력개발 훈련비용을 받은 자'에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다. 따라서 이를 전제로 한 이 사건 각 처분은 처분사유가 존재하지 아니하여 위법하다.

Therefore, without examining the remaining arguments of the plaintiff, each of the dispositions of this case must be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The presiding judge, judge and officer

Judges Lee Jin

Judge Lee Jae-il

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.