(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.9.22. 선고 2015구합11158 판결

The defendant's revocation of each recognition and each disposition of entrustment and restriction on recognition made on July 10, 2015 and August 21, 2015 shall be revoked to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Circumstances of each disposition of this case;

A. The Plaintiff is operating the C Education Center (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Education Center”) on the 5th floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B building.

B. On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff was recognized as the vocational skills development training course under Article 19(1) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development Act”) by the Defendant. On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff’s understanding and diagnosis practice of the psychological assessment was conducted on September 18, 2014, the “measurement of emotional behavior measurement and evaluation,” and the “working process for the psychological examination” as of February 6, 2015, and the “working process for the comprehensive psychological evaluation” was recognized as the vocational skills development training course under Article 19(1) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development Act”). On the basis of the result, the Defendant conducted an occasional guidance and inspection on the instant education center on more than two occasions on May 16 and May 26, 2015, and issued the following dispositions to the Plaintiff on July 10, 2015 (hereinafter “Disposition”).

A person shall be appointed.

D. After conducting an additional investigation against the instant education institute, the Defendant rendered the following dispositions to the Plaintiff on August 21, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “disposition as of August 21, 2015”; “each of the instant dispositions is referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”; and “dispositions No. 1 through 6” are set forth in the sequence of each of the instant dispositions as of July 10, 2015.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 20 and 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts for the following reasons that each of the dispositions of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful.

1) Even if examining the contents of each of the instant dispositions, it cannot be seen that: (a) even if examining the contents of each of the instant dispositions, the Plaintiff was subject to a consignment or recognition restriction disposition for a certain period; and (b) considering the contents of the subsequent dispositions that were subsequently rendered, it cannot be seen that the content of the final disposition that was calculated by comprehensively taking account of all of the aforementioned dispositions. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful because the content and scope of

2) As to the overlapping disposition

A) The disposition taken on July 10, 2015 on the working-level courses related to the examination, inspection, high-level working-level courses (or higher hearings) and the disposition taken on August 21, 2015 was based on the same disposition that all the Plaintiff provided education on the training courses for a short of 4 hours. Thus, the disposition taken on August 21, 2015 constitutes a duplicate disposition and thus is unlawful.

B) Each disposition taken on August 21, 2015 on the measurement and evaluation of human emotional behavior related to the measurement and evaluation of human emotional behavior was conducted on the basis of the same disposition that the Plaintiff conducted an education on the training course for four hours a short time. Thus, these dispositions constitute a double disposition and are unlawful.

3) Violation of guidance and inspection

A) Violation of the duty of advance notice

The Defendant’s failure to notify the Plaintiff of the date, time, details, etc. of the investigation before conducting the guidance inspection is in violation of the main sentence of Article 58(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act regarding advance notice of the administrative investigation.

B) Violation of the procedure for submitting a written confirmation

At the time of the guidance and inspection on May 16, 2015, the Defendant submitted a written confirmation from K, who is a person in charge of the instant education center or an employee who is not an illegal person, and the written confirmation does not stipulate at all the relevant provisions on the violation of statutes. This is against the procedure for submitting a written confirmation as stipulated by the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s Regulation on the Guidance and Supervision of the Vocational Skills Development Training Institution.

C) Abuse of investigative authority

The Defendant abused the right of investigation as follows when providing guidance and inspection to the instant education center and trainees.

(1) The Defendant: (a) believed only the information of the Plaintiff’s employees that the instant education personnel, while keeping the employee card of the trainees, engaged in the vicarious attendance; and (b) revoked the issuance of the employee card to nine of the trainees, other than I and J, who participated in the understanding and diagnosis practice, but actively explained that the said nine of the trainees lost the employee card, and subsequently revoked the issuance of the employee card, recognizing that there was no substitute attendance and immediately revoked the issuance of the employee card.

(2) The Defendant already demanded the trainees who completed the training course and the general students who are not subject to the refund of training costs to submit evidentiary documents and confirmation documents for their attendance.

(3) The Defendant notified the trainees to be deemed a person subject to wrongful acts if they did not submit evidentiary documents and confirmation of facts, thereby compelling the trainees to have an excessive duty of submission and forced disclosure of personal information.

D) Violation of Article 10(2) of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations concerning the presentation of a reason for presenting a request for submission

The defendant does not indicate a reason for requesting trainees to submit evidentiary documents, etc. when requesting them to submit them, whether to return documents to be submitted, and the applicable laws and regulations regarding sanctions against refusal to submit them, which violates Article 10 (2) of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations concerning the matters to be stated in a request for submission

4) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

A) In full view of the fact that the practical process of the comprehensive psychological evaluation (e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e. the e., the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e. the e.

B) The part of the violation of the exit management

(1) Even if the instant education personnel, related to the psychological inspection and high-level working-level training, conducted a substitute attendance for those trainees by using five workers’ cards, this does not constitute a case where the workplace skill development training was conducted in violation of the recognized contents under Article 19(2)5 of the Vocational Skills Development Act.

(2) Even if the education personnel in the case related to understanding of psychological evaluation and diagnosis practice conducted a substitute attendance for those trainees by using two workers' card, this does not constitute "a case where workplace skill development training was conducted in violation of recognized contents under Article 19 (2) 5 of the Vocational Skills Development Act."

(v) the deviation and abuse of discretionary authority;

Comprehensively taking account of the following, even if the training courses have not been conducted for the third day in the case of the examination, inspection, higher level of practice, and the measurement and evaluation of human emotional behavior, the actual training hours of trainees are not less than 16 hours and not less than 80%, so the requirements for recognition of the training courses prescribed by the Regulations on Assistance to the Workplace Skill Development Training, which is publicly notified by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, are met. The Defendant’s act of violation and its degree are relatively minor, and if each disposition of this case becomes final and conclusive, the Plaintiff cannot have any choice but to discontinue the education center of this case, each disposition of this case is excessively harsh to the Plaintiff, thereby deviating from and abusing discretionary power.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment 1] The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether the content of the disposition is unclear

A) Article 19(1) of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills provides that anyone who intends to conduct workplace skill development training for which workers are eligible to receive subsidies or loans for training costs shall obtain recognition from the Minister of Employment and Labor for the workplace skill development training course, and Article 19(2) provides that the Minister of Employment and Labor may order correction or revoke recognition of training courses where a person who has obtained recognition of a workplace skill development training course pursuant to paragraph (1) falls under any of the following subparagraphs, and subparagraph 2 provides that anyone who has obtained or intends to obtain subsidies or loans for training costs by fraud or other improper means, and subparagraph 5 provides that anyone whose recognition has been revoked pursuant to paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that anyone who has obtained recognition pursuant to paragraph (2) may be exempted from the entrustment of workplace skill development training and the recognition of training courses for developing workplace skills within the scope of five years from the date of revocation.

On the other hand, Article 19(5) of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that the detailed criteria for corrective orders and revocation of recognition, specific period of restriction for recognition by reason of revocation of recognition, and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and Article 6-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act, which is delegated by the Act, provides for the detailed criteria for corrective orders and criteria for the cancellation of recognition by reason of revocation of recognition in the workplace skill development training course (including account combination training courses)(hereinafter referred to as the "measures criteria

B) In the instant case:

In full view of the facts acknowledged in the above disposition circumstances and the following circumstances revealed by the respective statements as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that each of the instant dispositions was specifically specified to the extent that it can be recognizable the contents and scope of the respective dispositions. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① The disposition (attached Form 2) issued on July 10, 2015 on the disposition (attached Form 2) of the comprehensive psychological evaluation practice (the same shall apply to the disposition) is written on the disposition of the comprehensive psychological evaluation practice (as well as on the grounds of the violation of the approved training content, and on the grounds of the cancellation of recognition and restriction on recognition of the relevant course for one year, and on the grounds of the violation of other recognized contents. However, at the bottom of the disposition, only the "approval cancellation and restriction on entrustment and recognition of the relevant course for one year," which is the heavy sanction, are written on the basis of the final disposition, and the defendant asserts that the corrective order on the above training course is not included in the content of the disposition. Accordingly, the content of the disposition issued on July 10, 2015 is limited to the cancellation of recognition and restrictions on entrustment and recognition except for the corrective order as follows (Therefore, the plaintiff's claim related to the corrective order should not be judged separately).

A person shall be appointed.

② On August 21, 2015, a written disposition issued on the disposition rendered on August 21, 2015 includes the three-month course entrustment and restriction on recognition for the three-month course on the ground of the fact that the psychological inspection, high-level practice process and the training fee for the measurement and evaluation of human emotional behavior were denied.

However, Article 1. 1. 5 of the Disposition Criteria of this case provides that the period of entrustment and recognition restriction where two or more grounds for entrustment and recognition restriction concurrently arise shall be the aggregate period of up to three years, and according to the "Guidance and Supervision Manual for Training Institution for Vocational Skills Development" published by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, the grounds for restriction on entrustment and recognition refer to the cases where two or more violations referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 7 of the Disposition Criteria of this case occur simultaneously, and the following detailed violations (e.g., subparagraph 3 (a), 3 (b) of the Disposition Criteria of this case) are not meaning. Thus, the defendant stated them at the bottom of the Disposition Criteria of this case 2. 3 and 5 of the Disposition Criteria of this case. Each disposition stated in the No. 3 and 5 should not be simply added up the period of entrustment and recognition restriction, but shall be deemed to have set the period of entrustment and recognition restriction based on the total amount of unfair supply and demand of this case (i.e., 3, 500, 2000 won).

Ultimately, the content of the disposition in August 21, 2015 is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

③ According to subparagraph 1. General Criteria 5(5) of the instant measure criteria, each limitation period shall be added up to three years in the event at the same time two or more grounds for restriction on consignment and recognition occur or any additional grounds for restriction occur during the period of consignment and recognition restriction. Since the entire process includes an individual training course, the content of each training course is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

④ In light of the process of calculation of the content of dispositions as seen so far and the method thereof, each of the dispositions in this case includes a somewhat misleading error with regard to the content of dispositions. However, comparing each of the dispositions in this case with the workplace skill development statutes, it seems that the contents of the disposition in this case and the final disposition in this case are sufficiently known.

⑤ Furthermore, the subject of the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation by the instant lawsuit is limited to each of the instant dispositions, and there is no difference in conclusion as to whether the contents of the prior disposition are clear according to the contents of the subsequent disposition. Therefore, it is inappropriate to consider the subsequent disposition that is issued after each of the instant dispositions as data to determine the clarity of each

2) Whether the overlapping disposition is made

A) As to the practical process of psychological inspection and high-level trial

According to the facts acknowledged in the preceding disposition, Gap evidence Nos. 20, 21, and Eul evidence Nos. 17, and the purport of the whole arguments, the defendant's disposition constitutes a case where the plaintiff conducted the above training course from July 10, 2015, to January 12, 2015, and the plaintiff received training expenses from March 30, 2015 to March 26, 2015 on the ground that the plaintiff's act of substitute for the trainee without conducting the training for 4 hours scheduled on May 26, 2015, constitutes a case where the training is conducted in violation of Article 19 (2) 5 of the Vocational Skills Development Act.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the disposition of July 10, 2015 on the working-level process of the psychological prosecutor's high-level trial (hereinafter above-level trial) and the disposition of August 21, 2015 are separate dispositions that differ from the facts that form the basis thereof and the legal basis thereof.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B) Regarding the measurement and evaluation of human emotional behavior

According to the facts acknowledged in the preceding disposition, Gap evidence Nos. 21 and Eul evidence Nos. 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant's act constitutes an unlawful act of denying the plaintiff's receipt of training expenses equivalent to four hours without training as above from Jan. 12, 2015 to Jan. 14, 2015 to Jan. 26 to Jan. 28, 2015, and the plaintiff's failure to conduct training for four hours from Jan. 14, 2015 to Jan. 28, 2015 constitutes "where the plaintiff conducted workplace skill development training in violation of Article 19 (2) 5 of the Vocational Skills Development Act," and it constitutes "where the plaintiff conducted workplace skill development training in violation of the recognized contents" under Article 19 (2) 5 of the same Act and for six months, and where the plaintiff received the entrustment of training expenses for four hours or less from the plaintiff for the reason that he/she received the entrustment of training expenses under Article 19 (2) 3.

According to the above facts of recognition, each disposition of August 21, 2015 on the measurement and evaluation of human emotional behavior is a separate disposition that differs from the facts that served as the basis thereof.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3) Whether the guidance and inspection is illegal

A) Whether a prior notification obligation is violated

According to Article 58(1)2 and Article 60 of the Vocational Skills Development Act and Article 52(1)13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the head of a local employment and labor office may order a person recognized as a vocational skills development training course to make a necessary report or submit materials, or instruct or supervise the relevant public officials, etc. to enter a place where workplace skill development training, etc. is conducted and investigate relevant documents or ask questions to interested persons. Article 58(2) of the same Act provides that where such investigation is conducted, the head of a local employment and labor office shall notify the person under the investigation of necessary matters, such as the date and time of the investigation, etc., in advance. However, this provision shall not apply where it is deemed urgent

On May 16, 2015 and May 26, 2015, Defendant investigators visited the Plaintiff and presented official questions stating the date, time, details, etc. of the investigation to the Plaintiff, and conducted guidance and supervision between the parties concerned. In the event that the notice is given in advance to the training institution based on the materials submitted by the training institution and the statements of the related parties, the training institution is highly likely to make it impossible for the purpose of the guidance and inspection to be achieved by retroactively preparing relevant materials or complying with the statements of the related parties. Thus, the Defendant’s instruction and inspection of the instant education center falls under the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, and the date, time, details, etc. of the investigation cannot be said to be unlawful.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B) Whether the procedure for submitting a written confirmation is unlawful

Article 11(2) of the Regulations on the Guidance and Supervision of the Training Institution for Vocational Skills Development, which is the established rules of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, provides that an inspector shall, as a result of the inspection by the training institution, specify the relevant regulations in detail, obtain a written confirmation in attached Form 2 from the person in charge of the training institution and the dishonest, and according to the evidence No. 4, at the time of the guidance and inspection on May 16, 2015, it is recognized that the defendant submitted a written confirmation that "the schedule and the actual training content are inconsistent with the training schedule in the training time table of the comprehensive psychological evaluation process (e.g., the staff of the training institution of this case)"

However, in light of its nature and contents, the above provision is merely an administrative rule that sets the standards for administrative affairs inside the administrative agency, and it is effective only within the administrative organization, and it does not have external binding force. Thus, even if the defendant received the above confirmation from the person in charge of the education center or the employee who is not a dishonest, or does not stipulate the relevant provisions on the violation of statutes in the confirmation document, it is difficult to deem that there is any illegality in the procedure for the defendant to submit the above confirmation. Furthermore, even if based on the language and text of the above provision, it is difficult to view that the submission of the confirmation document by the employee of the training institution is prohibited

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

C) Whether the investigation authority has been abused

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) On June 5, 2015, L et al., an employee of the instant education center reported the Defendant of the Plaintiff’s misconduct regarding the processing of substitute attendance using the employee card, etc., and submitted the 11 employee card of the instant education center, such as M, N,0, P, Q, Q, I, J, R, S, T, and U, which was kept by the instant education center, as evidence proving the understanding of the psychological evaluation and the processing of substitute attendance at the examination practice. (B) On July 8, 2015, the Defendant requested the aforementioned trainee to submit a confirmation document on whether he/she has been represented by proxy, and among them, I and J submitted a confirmation document on the content of recognizing the substitute attendance.

(C) On August 5, 2015, the Defendant again requested that nine trainees, other than I and J, submit a factual confirmation, etc.

(D) On this basis, four trainees, such as N, Q, T, and U, submitted a factual confirmation that they had a worker card assigned to the instant education center and did not have a proxy attend the training center. However, the Defendant rejected the credibility of the content reported by L, etc. on the sole basis of the aforementioned factual confirmation, etc., and notified the trainees of the cancellation of the issuance of the worker card and the procedure for objection thereto on the ground that it is insufficient to support the fact that L, etc. was present at the training center. In addition, the Defendant notified M/O. R. of the issuance of the worker card in advance and revoked the issuance of the worker card and notified the procedure for objection.

(E) Since then, the Defendant rendered a disposition on August 21, 2015 on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the substitute presence in the case of the remaining trainees other than I and J, and only the substitute presence by I and J as a reason for disposition.

(F) On the other hand, from June 2015 to August 201 of the same year, the Defendant sent an official document of the title "request for confirmation of facts, etc." against trainees who received training or are undergoing training at the instant education center (hereinafter referred to as the "official document of this case"). The written official document of this case states that "I will deliver the evidentiary documents verifying whether you had actually attended the training course at the education center of this case, the details of the actual training, whether they had been present at the training center of this case, etc., and if you do not submit it without good cause, I will inform that you will be disposed of by the relevant law according to the results of the survey of proxy attendance."

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 14-2, Gap evidence 18, Eul evidence 20 through 22 (including branch numbers) and the purport of whole pleadings

(2) In the instant case:

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s cancellation of the issuance of an employee card to nine persons, including N, etc., whose representative attendance is insufficient, through a written investigation conducted by 11 trainees, including M, etc., who participated in the understanding of the psychological evaluation and the diagnosis practice based on the contents of the report and evidence reported by L, etc., who is an employee of the instant education center. After that fact, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have abused the investigative authority solely on the basis that such training trainee’s

In addition, the Defendant sent the instant official document to the trainees who received training or are undergoing training at the instant education center in order to comprehensively verify the actual status of the running management of the instant education center as part of the instruction and supervision over the training institution under Article 58(1) of the Vocational Skills Development Act. As such, solely on the fact that the trainees who completed training courses are included in the persons to whom the instant official notice was sent, it cannot be deemed that the instruction and inspection on the instant education center goes beyond the minimum scope necessary to achieve its purpose, and thus, constitutes an abuse of the right of investigation (the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant requested a confirmation of facts by sending the official document to the general trainees who are not subject to the refund of training fees, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this).

Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant sent the instant public notice to trainees and notified trainees of the fact that they are deemed those subject to wrongful acts if they did not submit a factual confirmation, etc., and rather, the instant public notice states that if they did not submit a factual confirmation, etc. without justifiable grounds, they may be subject to administrative disposition according to the relevant law according to the investigation results.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D) Article 10(2) of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations as to the presentation of a reason for presenting a request for submission, etc. provides that the head of an administrative agency shall send a written request for submission of data stating the following matters to a person subject to investigation when requesting the person subject to investigation to submit books, documents or other data, and stipulates the period for submission of a written request for submission, reason for submission, documents to be submitted, documents to be submitted, return of documents to be submitted, sanctions against refusal of submission (including the relevant statutes and provisions), and other necessary matters related to the administrative investigation.

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 18 and the purport of the entire oral argument, i.e., the reason for requesting the submission of evidentiary documents and confirmation of facts can easily be seen as the purpose of confirming the actual status of the training course conducted by the education center of this case. ② The official document of this case does not require the submission of evidentiary documents as the original documents of the training course conducted by the education center of this case; ② The official document of this case can be submitted in the form of a copy; thus, it is deemed that the return of evidentiary documents is not necessary to be entered in the official document of this case; ③ The official document of this case may be subject to administrative disposition according to the results of the investigation if a factual confirmation, etc. is not submitted without any justifiable reason; ③ The official document of this case is specified in the workplace skill development law along with the purport that it may be subject to administrative disposition according to the results of the investigation if it is not submitted with the confirmation of facts, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the law of sanction against the refusal to submit the documents violates Article 10(2) of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(iv) the existence of the reasons for the action

A) Part of the working-level process of comprehensive psychological evaluation (e.g., in-depth)

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) On February 6, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained recognition of the workplace skill development training course from the Defendant as follows with respect to the practical process of comprehensive psychological evaluation (in-depthization).

1. Name of training courses: On February 6, 2015, the training period: On February 2016, 2015, the training period shall be increased to the understanding of various psychological evaluations and the interpretation and the preparation of reports throughout the number and vision of each psychological prosecutor. 4. The training content: the understanding of the psychological evaluation and the composition of the psychological inspection, etc.

(B) From April 25, 2015 to June 13, 2015, the Plaintiff operated the five-time comprehensive psychological evaluation process (e.g., 50 hours) (e., 7 hours). The following is the comparison between the training details on the time table attached when reporting the implementation of the training and the actual training details.

A person shall be appointed.

On the other hand, the "working process for the comprehensive psychological evaluation (general) conducted by the Plaintiff in 2013 was 7 hours during the training hours to educate most of 50 hours during the 7th day, and the number of trainees' psychological evaluation reports was operated to educate only 2 hours during the training hours.

(C) At the time of the guidance and inspection on May 16, 2015, K, the team leader of the instant education center, submitted to the Defendant a written confirmation that “A lack of the training schedule and the actual training content (in particular, a disagreement between the training content on May 9, 2015 and the actual training content on May 16, 2015) in the training hours schedule of the comprehensive psychological evaluation process (in fact),” to the Defendant.

(D) The result of the survey conducted by the Defendant against 22 trainees who have attended five times the practical process for comprehensive psychological evaluation (e.g., the number of trainees who have responded to each training content is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 23 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 4 to 6, and 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Whether the recognized content was violated

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed based on the facts recognized as above and the purport of the entire pleading, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff conducted training in violation of the training contents, which are important matters of the training course, by arbitrarily organizing and operating the training courses, unless it is included in the training time table. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① In light of the fact that practical process of comprehensive psychological evaluation raises understanding of various psychological evaluations and in-depth access to interpretation and preparation of reports throughout the number of times for each psychological test and inspection, unlike practical process (general) for this purpose, it is difficult for trainees to spread the number of days out of the total training hours of 7 days, whichever is less than 3 days, to implement the psychological evaluation report of trainees, the core of the practical process of comprehensive psychological evaluation is that trainees prepare a report on the psychological evaluation of counseling cases and receive a short amount from trainees who are experts.

② On April 25, 2015, and May 2, 2015, when the Plaintiff arbitrarily organized MPI which was scheduled to provide education only on May 2, 2015, which was conducted on the training hour table, was additionally conducted on May 9, 2015, and 5,16 (EMI which was scheduled to provide education on May 2, 2015. Accordingly, the Plaintiff failed to prepare a report on the psychological evaluation of trainees and to provide the same on June 13, 2015 (the Plaintiff voluntarily organized and operated a different contents without being recognized as one of the grounds for disposition). Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above disposition is unlawful, but it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is inconsistent with the content of the training program at the time of the instant education center’s instruction inspection and inspection.

③ In the result of the survey conducted by the Defendant against trainees who completed the practical process of comprehensive psychological evaluation, the number of trainees who responded to the fact that the proportion of other psychological tests and classes is identical to that of MFI was the greatest. This shows that the practical process of comprehensive psychological evaluation (e.g., in-depthization) was conducted mainly for the education of MFI, rather than for the implementation of the training program for the trainees’ psychological evaluation report.

④ As such, without changing the training time table, the Plaintiff operated the training time scheduled to arbitrarily reduce the number of trainees’ psychological evaluation reports to implement the training time. Accordingly, it seems that it is impossible or considerably difficult to achieve the initial training target, as a result, to enhance the understanding of the psychological prosecutor’s interpretation and the preparation of the psychological evaluation report through the training time table.

B) Whether there was a violation of the management of entry.

(1) Article 19(2)5, Article 19(3) of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills provides that “where workplace skill development training is conducted in violation of recognized contents, the grounds for corrective order, cancellation of recognition, entrustment, and restriction on recognition.” Article 19(5) provides that “where workplace skill development training is conducted in violation of recognized contents, it shall be delegated to the Minister of Employment and Labor for the detailed criteria for corrective order and cancellation of recognition, specific recognition period by reason of recognition, restriction period by reason of recognition, and other necessary matters.” Article 6-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills delegated by the Minister of Employment and Labor stipulates differently the types of workplace skill development training conducted in violation of recognized contents under Article 19(2)5 and (3) of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills and Training of Workers by fraud or other improper means, it shall be entrusted or restricted to the relevant training period or time for six months.”

(2) In the instant case:

(A) The fact that the Plaintiff, related to the practical process of psychological inspection and high-level trial, operated a working-level course of psychological inspection and high-level trial from May 26, 2015 to May 26, 2015, by using a worker card with five trainees, is not disputed between the parties. This is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff violated the contents recognized to the extent that it would violate the purpose of the training by managing the grhetore in an unlawful manner to the extent that it would violate the purpose of the training, and constitutes grounds for cancellation of recognition and restriction on entrustment and recognition under Article 19(2)5 of the Vocational Skills Development Act.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(B) The fact that the Plaintiff, related to understanding of psychological evaluation and diagnosis practice, operated the understanding of the psychological evaluation, and conducted the vicarious attendance for the trainees by using the worker card with two trainees, is not a dispute between the parties. This is reasonable to deem that it constitutes grounds for cancellation of recognition, entrustment, and restriction of recognition under Article 19(2)5 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, in a case where the Plaintiff violated the contents recognized to the extent that it would violate the purpose of the training by managing the outwards by unlawful means.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

5) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused or not

A) Relevant legal principles

Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms, shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the violation, which is the reason for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all relevant

On the other hand, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ministerial Ordinance, it is nothing more than setting the internal rules for administrative affairs of administrative agencies, and it is externally a national or court

Inasmuch as there is no binding effect on B, and the determination of the legality of the pertinent disposition must be made not only in accordance with the above disposition standards but also in accordance with the provisions and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the pertinent disposition is not immediately deemed lawful as it conforms to the above disposition standards. However, barring any reasonable ground to believe that the pertinent disposition disposition does not in itself conform with the Constitution or laws, or that a punitive administrative disposition in accordance with the above disposition standards is considerably unreasonable in light of the content and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the content and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it shall not be deemed that the pertinent disposition has deviates from the scope of discretion or has abused discretionary power (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6946, Sept.

B) In the instant case:

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, each of the instant dispositions cannot be deemed to have exceeded or abused discretion due to excessive suspicion to the Plaintiff, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) In order to achieve the purpose of workplace skill development training and prevent unfair claims for training costs, a thorough management and supervision as to whether training courses are conducted as originally recognized, as well as a thorough management and supervision of trainees, must be conducted strictly.

In particular, if the trust and fairness of the call management are shaken, it is highly likely to undermine the foundation of the workplace skill development training system itself.

② However, the Plaintiff, while operating four training courses at the instant education center, conducted training by arbitrarily changing the recognized training contents or shortening training hours, and illegally received training fees of KRW 3,960,000 from trainees’ employees card. In light of the details, details, frequency, etc. of the violation, the degree of the misconduct is more severe and the possibility of social criticism is also high.

③ Each disposition of this case is in conformity with the disposition standards set forth in subparagraphs 2 (2) and 5 (e) of the measure criteria of this case. It does not appear that such disposition criteria per se conform to the Constitution or laws, or that the subsequent disposition of this case is remarkably unfair.

④ Even if a trainee who has taken a psychological test, high-level practical course (a higher trial), or a test and evaluation of human emotional behavior satisfies at least 16 hours, and at least 80% of the attendance rate, this is merely a mere fact that the Plaintiff’s implementation of the above training courses recognized as 20 hours a day by shortening the said training courses to 16 hours a day to 20 hours, and that the requirements for subsidization of training expenses are satisfied formally, the circumstances favorable to the Plaintiff cannot be considered.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.