logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.6.21.선고 2017구합89643 판결
재공인부적합처분취소청구의소
Cases

2017Guhap89643 Action to revoke the revocation of the re-authorized partnership

Plaintiff

A An incorporated association

Attorney Kim Sang-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant

Minister of Employment and Labor

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Attorney Park Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff

Conclusion of Pleadings

May 17, 2019

Imposition of Judgment

June 21, 2019

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim

On January 23, 2018, the defendant revoked the non-officially recognized decision on the qualifications of Class B1, 2, 3, and 4 against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) the status of the parties and accreditation of B qualifications;

The Plaintiff is an incorporated association with the purpose of training skills and qualification examinations in the field of informatization management; around December 200, the Plaintiff obtained national certification under the Framework Act on Qualifications for Class B1, 2, 3, and 4 (hereinafter referred to as “instant private qualification”), a private qualification managed and operated by the Plaintiff from the Defendant, and subsequently obtained re-authorization for the instant private qualification from the Defendant on February 2, 2006, around February 9, 201 (from February 9, 2011 to February 8, 2014) and January 21, 2014 (a certified period: from February 9, 2014 to February 8, 2017).

B. The Defendant’s corrective order and the re-authorized decision in 2016

1) On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-authorization of the instant private qualification with the Korea Occupational Ability Development Institute (hereinafter referred to as the “Occupational Institute”) delegated the authority to receive, investigate, etc. applications for recognition of private qualifications by the Defendant.

2) On July 22, 2016, after conducting an on-site investigation on the instant private qualification pursuant to Article 26(1) and (2)(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Qualifications, the Institute of Skilled the result of the investigation conducted by the Defendant on July 22, 2016 that the recognition of the instant private qualification is at least 154 points (70%) for re-accomption as a result of the investigation conducted by the Defendant on July 22, 2016.

3) On July 27, 2016, pursuant to Articles 8(1)5 and 19(1) of the Framework Act on Qualifications, the Defendant requested the Deliberative Council on Qualification (hereinafter referred to as the “Deliberative Council”) to deliberate on whether the instant private qualification has been re-accredited. The Deliberative Council deliberated on the instant private qualification, etc. between September 1, 2016 and September 7, 2016, and decided to extend the term of accreditation for three years from February 9, 2017 to February 8, 2020. On September 19, 2016, the Defendant notified the Defendant of the result.

4) On October 5, 2016, on the basis of the civil petition received at the national newspaper on September 26, 2016, the Defendant issued a direction and inspection to the Plaintiff on October 5, 2016. On October 7, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order (hereinafter referred to as “instant corrective order”) to improve the branch system and examination management system in order to enhance the credibility of accredited qualifications and the services for the applicants, on the ground that the majority of the branch offices (i) operate without the branch office office office without the branch office, (ii) fails to manage civil petitions on the Association website, and (iii) fails to grant the re-approval of the instant private qualification (hereinafter referred to as “re-approval decision in 2016”) by setting the period of accreditation as one year from February 9, 2017 to February 8, 2018.

1) On March 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for re-authorization of the instant private qualification with the Skilled Institute. (2) On July 10, 2017, the Skilled Institute conducted an on-site investigation of the instant private qualification, and submitted to the Defendant a result of the investigation that is inappropriate for re-authorization of the instant private qualification, since the horizontal point of the investigation conducted falls short of 120.5 points (54.8%, the total point 220 points, and the same as the entry in the attached research sheet) as a result of the investigation conducted on July 10, 2017.

3) On July 20, 2017, the Defendant requested the Deliberative Council to deliberate on whether the instant private qualification has been re-accredited, and the Deliberative Council deliberated on the instant private qualification, etc. between August 23, 2017 and September 4, 2017, and resolved that the re-accredited of the instant private qualification is inappropriate, and notified the Defendant of the result on September 11, 2017.

4) On September 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff a ruling of non-conformity with re-accredited the instant private qualification (hereinafter referred to as "re-accredited ruling") in 2017.

(d) ex officio revocation of a decision of non-conformity with the re-accredited in 2017, and a decision of non-conformity with the re-accredited

On January 23, 2018, the Defendant revoked ex officio a decision of non-conformity with the instant private qualification granted in 2017 on the ground that there is a procedural defect that did not present the grounds and reasons for the disposition to the Plaintiff when the Defendant rendered a decision of non-conformity with the re-accredited in 2017. On the same day, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-conformity with the instant private qualification under Articles 19 and 20 of the Framework Act on Qualifications and Articles 24, 24, and 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Qualifications on the ground that “the instant private qualification fails to meet the standards for accreditation provided for in Article 24, subparagraph 1, 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Qualifications” (hereinafter referred to as “decision of non-conformity with the instant private qualification”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 24, 26 through 36 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on non-conformity of the re-officially recognized in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The decision of non-conformity of the instant case must be revoked as it is illegal for the following reasons.

1) Illegal assertion related to the re-authorized decision in 2016

On October 5, 2016, the Defendant issued the instant corrective order to the Plaintiff on the ground that the extension of the term of accreditation was set as one year, unlike the result of deliberation by the Council extending the term of accreditation for three years. However, the instant corrective order was unlawful in violation of Article 25(5) of the Framework Act on Qualifications since the Defendant’s pointed out in the instant corrective order does not relate to the matters stipulated in the Framework Act on Qualifications. Furthermore, according to Article 28(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Qualifications, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant is bound by the result of deliberation by the Council when re-approving a private qualification. Accordingly, the Defendant’s arbitrary reduction of the term of accreditation for one year, unlike the result of deliberation by the Council, was in violation of the Framework Act on Qualifications, and the reduction of the term of accreditation for one year is very exceptional, and the period of accreditation for one year is too short, and the Defendant’s arbitrary reduction of the term of accreditation for the instant private qualification to 2016.

2) The allegation of illegality in the criteria for assessing occupational personnel

Article 24 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Qualifications provides that "a private qualification shall have management and operation capabilities of a private qualification suitable for the basic direction for operating a qualification system under Article 3 of the Framework Act on Qualifications." It means that at least the above requirements have been met at the time of accreditation. An occupational skill officer entrusted with an investigation of standards, etc. for qualification examination pursuant to Article 38(4) of the Framework Act on Qualifications and Articles 34(5)28 and 26(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Qualifications shall divide the standards for classification by evaluation items for review of re-authorization of private qualifications into six stages, and grants points according to each class, "the total points for conversion of points shall be at least 70% (154 points) of the Framework Act on Qualifications." Thus, in order to meet the re-authorization requirements, the average class of each item shall exceed C, and even if the defendant maintains an unreasonable level of skill at the time of accreditation, it is not in violation of the first evaluation criteria of private qualification under Article 1 of the Framework Act.

3) Although the private qualification of this case was obtained 170.5 points at the time of the re-authorization decision in 2016, the private qualification of this case was determined as non-officially accredited in this case by acquiring only 50 points or reduced 120.5 points at the time of the re-authorization decision in 2016 and obtaining 170.5 points at the time of the re-authorization decision. However, it is against common sense that the defendant received 50 points or lower points at the non-approval on the part of 1 year and 1 year, and the defendant did not present specific grounds or reasons for giving low points as above, and the D 1, 2, and 3 qualifications operated and managed by the plaintiff were obtained 173.5 points at the re-authorized on the part of 2017 and re-accredited. In addition, it is reasonable to view that the non-approval decision of this case was non-accredited on the ground that the non-approval decision of this case does not have any substantial basis for the re-authorization decision.

4) With respect to a private qualification accredited in violation of the principle of proportionality in the Constitution, additional points are given at the time of promotion of public educational officials and selection of vocational soldiers, the polytechnic college recognizes credits equivalent to the qualifications, and various benefits are granted such as recognition of completion of subjects corresponding to the qualifications so far. For this reason, a person up to 804,286 has acquired the private qualification of this case until now. due to a decision of re-authorization of this case, an applicant seeking to acquire the private qualification of this case has a significant economic impact on the plaintiff, and therefore, a situation that prevents the implementation of the private qualification of this case may arise. In such a case, a person who acquired the private qualification of this case in the past cannot conduct a re-examination to extend the validity period of qualification, thereby causing disadvantages that would lose the private qualification of this case. A new decision of re-authorization of the private qualification of this case would return to the efforts of many successful applicants preparing to acquire the private qualification of this case, and a decision of re-authorization which seriously violates the principle of proportionality or re-authorization of the private qualification of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination of illegality regarding the re-authorized decision in 2016

A) The Framework Act on Qualifications, which aims to systemize the management and operation of qualification systems, promote lifelong vocational ability development, enhance social and economic status of citizens, and contribute to the realization of a competent society (Article 1), provides that the competent Minister shall guide and inspect accredited qualification managers under his/her jurisdiction once a year in order to enhance the credibility of accredited qualifications (Article 29(1)), and the competent Minister shall, if deemed necessary, require the relevant accredited qualification managers to submit necessary reports and necessary instructions, and may give other necessary instructions (Article 29(3)). In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence No. 21, the competent Minister, who manages the registration of the private qualification of this case, is not in accordance with Article 29 of the Framework Act on Qualifications (Article 25 of the Framework Act on Qualifications, which provides that the competent Minister shall order correction when an accredited qualification manager violates "in relation to the management and operation of accredited qualifications," and that the head of the competent Minister shall not send the Plaintiff's order of correction and guidance based on the above "office guidance and inspection system" to improve accredited qualifications of the Plaintiff's and order of the above.

B) Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on Qualifications provides that "the Council shall be established in the Ministry of Education to deliberate on matters concerning the accreditation of private qualifications, etc." Article 19(1) provides that "the competent Minister may approve a private qualification managed by a corporation following deliberation by the Council to secure private qualifications, trust in such private qualifications, and enhance social applicability." Article 19(3) provides that "the matters necessary for the standards, procedures, etc. for accreditation of private qualifications shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Qualifications provides that "the standards for accreditation of private qualifications prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 19(3) of the Qualification Standards Act shall have the management and operation ability of private qualifications suitable for the basic direction of the operation of the qualification system under Article 3 of the Qualification Standards Act (subparagraph 1), which has been implemented for not less than one year as of the date of application, and if there are relevant national qualifications, the standards for accreditation of the relevant private qualification, examination subjects and the level of accreditation, such as qualifications, shall be identical or equivalent to the relevant national qualifications (subparagraph 3).

According to the above provisions of the Framework Act on Qualifications, the competent Minister must undergo prior deliberation by the Council when he approves a private qualification. However, it is not necessarily bound by the results of deliberation by the Council, and it is necessary to determine whether the relevant private qualification satisfies the standards for recognition under Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Qualifications. Thus, even if the Council deliberated on the qualification period of this case for three years, it is not bound by the defendant, and it cannot be concluded that the defendant's re-authorization decision on the private qualification of this case is unlawful because the term of accreditation is not one year. The defendant's branch is operated without the office of the majority of the plaintiff's branch, the plaintiff's complaint management is insufficient in the plaintiff's homepage, and the plaintiff's ground for hindering the credibility of the private qualification of this case, and the plaintiff's re-authorization order of this case is not sufficient to fully revoke the 20-year 16-year 30-year 20-year 20-year 20-year 20-year 20-year 16-year 2.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

2) Determination as to the allegation of illegality in the criteria for assessing occupational personnel

A) Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the results of the fact inquiry conducted on June 14, 2018 by this Court concerning the occupational personnel of this Court.

(1) As seen in the "evaluation of the current status of management and operation of a civil qualification" in the on-site investigation of civil qualifications, a technician shall conduct an evaluation by the method of granting each of the relevant points to 11) the total 28 detailed evaluation items, and the standards for conducting an evaluation by the evaluation method as seen in the "evaluation method by detailed items" as stated in the "evaluation method by detailed items".

(2) On the detailed evaluation items of Section A, B, C, D, E, and F in accordance with the general standards as follows, the Institute of Skilled Works sets out the criteria to assign the following points according to each class. As a result of the final evaluation, the Institute of Skilled Works is not appropriate for the items subject to the approval of modification, is not F in each of the detailed evaluation items, and is not more than 154(70%) with a total of 154(70%).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(3) In addition to the above general criteria, a technician separately determines detailed evaluation criteria and evaluation methods for all the detailed evaluation items of each of the detailed evaluation items in the evaluation of the management and operation status of attached qualification (27 items 13). Of them, “the utilization of qualifications on January 1, 2.1, 2.2.1, the fairness and expertise of the members preparing questions (review members), and the parts concerning human resources and organization on January 1, 2.2.3.1.

1.1.1.1.1.1. i.e., the content of functions of qualification [evaluation criteria] shall be designed with system, on-site, and expertise, and shall meet the usefulness of industrial sites and society. Related data]

The case data on the application of the ○ qualification category [evaluation method] The external activities are confirmed to enhance the utilization of the ○ qualification category. The evaluation of the performance records used by the ○ accredited qualification members for admission, employment, etc. shall be conducted on February 1, 202.2.1, i.e., the fairness and expertise [evaluation criteria] of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of the examination. [Related data] The criteria for appointment of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of making questions(appointeds), the procedures for preparing the commissioned materials of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of the members in charge of the examination (appointeds, the appointment letter,

It is confirmed whether the ○○ members preparing questions comply with the commission standards of the members preparing questions. The preparation and adequacy of relevant documents, such as the appointment of the ○ members preparing questions (a written oath, the details of wages, etc.) shall be confirmed. The criteria for the evaluation of human resources and organizations on March 1, 200 ) private qualification managers shall be equipped with an appropriate operating organization to efficiently conduct the examination affairs and secure management human resources who have good text and fairness, and shall gather objective qualification examination and the efficiency of the operation of institutions. [Related data] The current status of branch offices (e.g., records) and various report data [evaluation method] on documents management personnel and organization. The appropriateness of human resources and organizations following the increase in the number of applicants after the date of the evaluation shall be assessed.

B) Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole, it is not determined that the criteria for evaluation applied by the craftsmen in conducting a field investigation on the private qualification of this case are unreasonable, or that its criteria or methods are too abstract, and thus arbitrary evaluation is inevitable under the supervision of the evaluators. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the Defendant made a decision of non-conformity of this case by referring to the findings of the investigation conducted in accordance with the criteria for assessment of the craftsmen, which is unlawful. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is unlawful.

(1) In accordance with the above evaluation criteria, the Institute of Skills determines the conversion point to be 154 (70%) or more as a result of the evaluation conducted in accordance with the above evaluation criteria. According to the general standards applied to each evaluation item, the grade average of each evaluation item is required to maintain the level at the time of the official approval in order to obtain a re-verification determination. If the grade of all evaluation items falls under Category C, the total conversion point is below 132 (60%). However, if the class of all evaluation items falls under the category C, the total conversion point falls under the category of 132 (60%) and the conversion point falls short of the re-verification standard. However, the above criteria are only the general guidelines or standards commonly applicable to each detailed evaluation item, and there are individual detailed evaluation criteria for all the detailed evaluation items are separately embodied in consideration of the contents and characteristics of each detailed evaluation item. The evaluation criteria for the actual detailed evaluation items are determined to be conducted in accordance with the detailed evaluation criteria and evaluation methods, and there are no special problems in each detailed evaluation criteria or evaluation methods, so it is not unreasonable to establish any inconsistency among the general evaluation criteria for each function.

(2) According to the criteria for evaluation of the skill committee, the criteria for evaluation reflecting the contents and characteristics of the evaluation items are relatively detailed, the related data to be referred to as the evaluation, the evaluation methods, and the standards for each grade separately. It is determined that the possibility of a person's involvement according to the evaluation officer's supervision is excluded to the greatest extent, and the specific abstract concept of each corresponding grade criteria is used as the evaluation indicator. However, in light of the specific contents of each detailed evaluation item, it is judged that there is a realistic limit to completely exclude the use of the abstract concept and to prepare a quantitative standard and block them. Thus, as long as detailed criteria for the evaluation criteria, such as the above evaluation criteria, data to be referred to as the evaluation methods, evaluation methods, and evaluation methods are established, it cannot be viewed that the criteria for civil qualification of the skill committee violate the purpose of the Framework Act on Qualifications merely because the concept of each corresponding grade criteria is somewhat abstractly used as the evaluation indicator.

3) Determination on the illegality of deviation from discretionary power

A) Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the results of the fact inquiry conducted by the Ministry of Education in March 28, 2019, as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 37,38; Eul evidence Nos. 37,38; Eul Nos. 14, June 14, 2018; each fact inquiry conducted on August 16, 2018; and each fact inquiry conducted on March 28, 2019

(1) In carrying out an on-site investigation of the instant private qualification in 2017, the Institute of Research and Study selected four researchers who meet the appointment criteria for the State-authorized Investigation and Research Members on Civil Qualifications. The said four researchers conducted an individual evaluation of the detailed evaluation criteria in accordance with the aforementioned evaluation criteria. The instant private qualification, as a result of the evaluation of the said four investigators, failed to meet the re-accredited suitability criteria with a total point of 170.5 points.

(2) Comprehensive evaluation opinions of the above four researchers are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(3) After the decision of non-conformity in the instant case, the Plaintiff filed an application for new recognition with the Skilled Institute in around 2018, and the Skilled Institute conducted a field investigation of the instant private qualification. As a result of a field investigation conducted by other researchers at the time of 2017 and a field investigation conducted by other researchers, the instant private qualification was determined to be "new accreditation" after acquiring the total point of 136.8 (62.2%).

(4) The qualifications of Grade D 1, 2, and 3 operated and managed by the Plaintiff obtained 173.5 points (78.9%) from the on-site investigation of the Skill Board in 2017, and received re-authorized decisions from the Defendant.

(5) The status of applicants, etc. for the instant private qualification as Class D 1, 2, and 3 and the status of applicants, etc. from 2015 to 2017 are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

(6) Four cases, other than the instant private qualifications, where the Council has passed a resolution of re-accredited in the re-accredited deliberation on private qualifications conducted between September 18, 2008 and October 29, 2018 (not verified the grounds for non-conformity).

B) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a whole in light of the purport of the entire pleadings, there is no error of law that deviates from the scope of discretion in the decision to refuse re-authorization of this case. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(1) Four members selected according to the appointment criteria for civil qualification state-accredited researchers conducted an evaluation of 28 detailed items of assessment according to the detailed evaluation criteria of the craftsmen, and as a result, the private qualification of this case was found to have failed to meet the criteria for re-accredited conformity assessment at a point of 170.5 points in total. In addition to the individual evaluation criteria for detailed items of assessment, researchers suggested a separate comprehensive opinion as well. In common, they point out that the level of difficulty of the private qualification of this case is low, the uncertainty of the criteria between grades, the appropriateness of the test contents, and the excessive passing rate, etc. In light of the fact that the field investigation on the private qualification of this case was conducted based on legitimate criteria, and that the private qualification of this case was judged to have been judged to have been "unsatising", it is not judged that the examination on the private qualification of this case conducted in 2017 was specially unfair.

(2) As seen earlier, the fact that class D 1, 2, and 3 qualifications operated and managed by the Plaintiff obtained 173.5 points in a re-authorized field investigation in 2017 and received a re-authorized decision. However, since the above D 1, 2, and 3 qualifications and the instant private qualifications have significant differences in the number of applicants, applicants, and qualified applicants, there may be considerable differences in the specific management and operation status that all of the qualifications of class D 1, 2, and 3 are called a qualifying examination administered and managed by the Plaintiff as a qualifying examination administered and managed by the Plaintiff. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the examination of the instant private qualifications was conducted unfairly on the ground that it was subject to a re-authorized decision in 2017, and there is no other obvious evidence to support that the examination of the instant private qualifications was conducted unfairly.

(3) In addition to the instant private qualification, the Council has made a decision of non-conformity with respect to four private qualifications between September 18, 2008 and October 29, 2018. Even when considering the fact that the specific reasons for the decision of non-conformity have not been verified, it is extremely exceptional that the Defendant made a decision not to re-approve the instant private qualification, and thus it cannot be readily concluded that it is contrary to the principle of equity.

4) Determination on the assertion of violation of the principle of proportionality in the Constitution

A) Facts of recognition

In full view of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 27, 28, and 37, when conducting an investigation into the private qualification of this case in 2017 and collecting opinions on the necessity of the extension of the accreditation period of the private qualification of this case from E, an incorporated association, and F (hereinafter referred to as "F") in accordance with Article 26 (4) 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Qualifications, E, E, and F, while conducting an investigation into the private qualification of this case in 2018, K, while gathering opinions on the new accreditation of the private qualification of this case from G institutions and F, it is recognized that G institutions and F, with the opinion of "non-academic necessity", and F, with the specific review submitted by each external institution as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

B) Determination

In light of the purport of the Framework Act on Qualifications stipulating the recognition of private qualifications as above and the facts recognized in paragraph 2.(c)(A) above, since the interests that are considerably infringed compared to the purpose of achieving the decision of non-conformity of this case as seen below, the decision of non-conformity of this case does not constitute a violation of the principle of proportionality. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(1) In order to promote the development of lifelong vocational abilities and contribute to enhancing the social and economic status of citizens (Article 1 of the Framework Act on Qualifications), and to devise policies necessary to revitalize private qualifications and enhance public confidence (Article 4(4) of the Framework Act on Qualifications). The State’s accreditation system for private qualifications is a key system implemented to achieve the aforementioned objectives. In cases where it is determined that private qualifications fail to meet the State’s accreditation requirements as a result of an examination conducted in accordance with the standards and procedures prescribed by the Qualification Standards Act and subordinate statutes, the competent Minister recognizes a high level of public interest needed to properly operate the accreditation system for private qualifications by failing to re-approve the relevant private qualifications.

(2) In light of the results of the on-site investigation conducted in 2017 by the Skill Institute for the instant private qualification, the results of the deliberation conducted in 2017 by the Council, together with the results of the deliberation conducted in 2017, the review conducted by the F and E agencies in 2017, G agencies in 2018, and F’s review opinions, it is determined that the instant private qualification has not been maintained standards that can obtain national accreditation. Around 2000 and December, a large number of persons have acquired the instant private qualification for the first time after obtaining national accreditation, and the fact that the present number of persons are preparing for acquiring the instant private qualification is presumed to have been in accordance with the empirical rule, but on such circumstances alone, continued granting national accreditation to the instant private qualification which fails to meet the requirements for national accreditation may infringe the general expectations and trust of the instant private qualification, and ultimately result in the national accreditation systemizing the private qualification ultimately, not infringing on the interests of the State due to failing to meet the requirements for national accreditation.

(3) In addition to making a decision not to re-approve the instant private qualification which fails to meet the national qualification requirements, there is no particular administrative measure as prescribed by the Framework Act on Qualifications, and the Plaintiff is able to obtain new recognition at any time on the ground that the instant private qualification satisfies the part which falls short of the national qualification requirements. Even if national recognition is not granted, it is not prohibited to conduct the instant private qualification examination or to conduct the instant private qualification, and thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant private qualification has a significant infringement on the Plaintiff or a person who acquired the instant private qualification, due to the decision not to grant the national qualification.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge, the rank of the judge;

Judges Kim Gin-jin

Judges Doodehyde

Note tin

(i) Article 26 (Investigation, etc.);

(1) The competent Minister in receipt of an application under Article 25 (1) shall be in accordance with the necessity of a private qualification to obtain accreditation, standards for qualification examinations, and relevant national qualifications.

The compatibility, etc. shall be investigated.

(2) An investigation conducted by the competent Minister under paragraph (1) shall be comprised of documentary examination and field investigation, and an on-site investigation shall be accredited by documentary examination.

A private qualification may be conducted where it is deemed that the requirements of paragraph (1) are met.

2) Article 8 (Establishment, etc. of Qualification Policy Council)

(1) The Ministry of Education shall establish the Qualification Policy Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Council") to deliberate on the following matters concerning qualifications:

5. Matters concerning the accreditation of private qualifications; and

(iii) Article 19 (Accreditation of Civil Qualifications);

(1) The competent Minister shall be a citizen managed by a corporation following the deliberation of the Council in order to secure the trust of private qualifications and enhance their social applicability.

A qualification may be recognized as a simple qualification.

(iv) Article 24 (Standards for Accreditation of Civil Qualifications);

The State's standards for accreditation of private qualifications under Article 19 (3) of the Act shall be as follows:

1. It shall have the capability to manage and operate private qualifications suitable for the basic direction for the operation of qualification systems under Article 3 of the Act;

(v) Article 25 (Corrective Orders)

The competent Minister shall, when an accredited qualification manager violates this Act in relation to the management and operation of accredited qualifications, determine a period of time to an accredited qualification manager.

order such correction.

6) Article 28 (Notice, etc. of Results of Accreditation)

(1) The Minister of Education shall notify the competent Minister of the result of the deliberation by the Council under section 27.

(2) The competent Minister notified of the result of deliberation pursuant to paragraph (1) shall apply for accreditation within 21 days from the date he/she is notified of the result of deliberation.

A public official shall be notified to the person, and if the public official is not accredited or is accredited differently from the contents of the application, the reasons therefor shall be specified: Provided, That the

Where it is impossible to serve the result of official approval within the processing period due to unavoidable reasons, such period may be extended only once by up to seven days.

section 1.

7) Article 38 (Delegation and Entrustment of Authority)

(4) The competent Minister shall delegate part of his/her authority over accreditation of private qualifications to the heads of affiliated agencies or other persons, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

The head of an administrative agency or a related specialized institution may be delegated or entrusted.

8) Article 34 (Delegation and Entrustment of Authority)

(5) The competent Minister shall entrust the following affairs concerning accreditation of private qualifications to the Korea Vocational Ability Development Institute pursuant to Article 38 (4) of the Act:

The following duties concerning accreditation of private qualifications related to economic education under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Economic Education Support Act shall be prescribed in Article 8 of the same Act:

It may be entrusted to an institution supervising economic education.

2. Investigation, collection of opinions, and request for data under Article 26 (1), (2), (4) and (5);

9) Article 26 (Investigation, etc.)

(1) The competent Minister in receipt of an application under Article 25 (1) shall be in accordance with the necessity of a private qualification to obtain accreditation, standards for qualification examinations, and relevant national qualifications.

The compatibility, etc. shall be investigated.

10) See paragraph (2)(a) below 2.c. (2)

11) On January 21, 12 12.1.21, evaluation items for discretionary change are not assigned to marks, and they are evaluated as "integrative and non-conforming."

12) Of the 28 detailed evaluation items, "an assessment of whether there is a voluntary change or not" on January 21, 200 excluding an assessment of the 28 detailed evaluation items.

13) Of the evaluation items of total 28 detailed items, '2.1.21.2.1 evaluation items for voluntary change' is excluded, and 27 items for detailed evaluation are individually subject to evaluation items.

In addition, human evaluation standards are prepared.

14) In the case of qualified specialists, the criteria for qualification systems and persons with at least one year’s career in the field of vocational education and training as holders of doctor’s degrees;

In the case of experts, the standards for "persons with doctoral degree in the related field" should be met.

15)D is classified into levels 1 through 8. Only grades 1, 2, and 3 certified among them.

16) Article 26 (Investigation, etc.)

(1) The competent Minister in receipt of an application under Article 25 (1) shall be in accordance with the necessity of a private qualification to obtain accreditation, standards for qualification examinations, and relevant national qualifications.

The compatibility, etc. shall be investigated.

(1) Where the competent Minister conducts an investigation pursuant to paragraph (1), he/she shall hear the opinions of educational and training institutions, industries, or relevant organizations.

Attached Form

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.

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.

A person shall be appointed.

arrow