(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.2.14. 선고 2013누26134 판결

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders the revocation below, shall be revoked. The Defendant’s revocation of the designation of vocational training facilities granted to the Plaintiff on November 19, 2010 shall be revoked.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of March (from November 19, 2010 to February 18, 201) on the entrustment restriction on the entire course of the 0 B Vocational Professional School, ② Disposition of one year (from November 19, 2010 to November 18, 201) on the entrustment restriction on the course of the cosmetic and beauty art design at B vocational technical schools, ③ Disposition of one year (from November 1, 2010 to November 18, 201) on the restriction on the restriction on the payment of subsidies under the Employment Insurance Fund Support Project (from October 28, 2008 to October 27, 2009), ④ Order of return of KRW 1,436,940 to the same amount, and disposition of revocation on the designation of vocational training facilities ⑤ All disposition of revocation on the designation of vocational training facilities.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment shall be revoked. ① Disposition of one year (from November 19, 2010 to November 18, 201) restriction on consignment in the course of beauty and beauty art design at the technical school B, which the defendant rendered to the plaintiff on November 1, 2010, ② Order to return the illegally received amount of KRW 1,436,940, and additional collection of KRW 873,810, and ③ Revocation of the designation of vocational training facilities.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

In the lawsuit of this case brought by the plaintiff against the defendant and the Republic of Korea as the other party, the first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the Republic of Korea, and partly accepted the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, and the judgment prior to the remanding of the case was all dismissed. The plaintiff and the defendant respectively filed an appeal, but the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the Republic of Korea and the defendant's appeal (which became final and conclusive as to the plaintiff's claim against the Republic of Korea) and partly accepted the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant

Accordingly, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the part of the Supreme Court's judgment before remanding the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant, which was reversed by the Supreme Court prior to remanding the defendant's judgment, which was "the part of the claim for revocation of the designation of vocational training facilities for the plaintiff on November 19, 2010 (hereinafter "the disposition of this case")."

2. Details of the instant disposition and relevant statutes

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that "the defendant Republic of Korea" is "the Republic of Korea", "the Administrator of the North Korean Site" is "the defendant", and "the revocation of the designation of vocational training facilities" in paragraph 1.f. is changed to "the disposition of this case", and the "disposition of this case" in paragraph 1.f. is the same as the above Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2.b., with the exception of deletion of each of the following parts, and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

According to Article 31(1)3 and Article 29 subparag. 9 of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter “former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills”), the Minister of Employment and Labor must cancel the designation of a designated vocational training facility where the designation is subject to the restriction on consignment of workplace skill development training pursuant to Article 16 of the former Act on the Development of Vocational Skills, and Article 31 and Article 29 of the former Act on the Development of Vocational Skills were amended by Act No. 10339, Jun. 4, 2010 (amended by Act No. 1039, Jun. 5, 2010).

On the other hand, the disposition to revoke the designation of a designated occupational training establishment requires that the designated occupational training establishment is subject to restrictions on the entrustment of training for the development of occupational abilities as above. However, the disposition to restrict the entrustment for three months to the entire course of the BP School, which may be deemed to meet the requirements of the instant disposition, and the disposition to restrict the entrustment for one year to each of the instant training courses, was implemented on November 19, 2010, when the amended Vocational Development Act was enforced, and the instant disposition was also conducted on the same day. Thus, the instant disposition should be based not on the former Vocational Development Act, which was enforced at the time of the represented of C and D, but on the criteria set by the amended Vocational Development Act and the Standards

However, in light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① training expenses paid for a period of absence of C and D, which fall under training expenses paid as “the Plaintiff’s false or other unlawful means,” and the Defendant mispercing that training expenses are less than KRW 1,436,940, and the Plaintiff would not be paid training expenses despite being aware of the above substitute attendance, ② training instructors would not be deemed to have been aware of the above substitute attendance, ③ training instructors are illegal disposition of the above three-month entrustment restriction is illegal as there is no ground for disposition, and the restriction on commission pursuant to the one-year consignment restriction disposition of each of the training courses of this case is merely a restriction on commission of some training courses, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful without examining the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claims, as the grounds for disposition of this case are not recognized.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the ground of its conclusion. Thus, the part concerning the disposition of this case among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the disposition of this case