(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.9.17. 선고 2019구합73674 판결

On October 31, 2019, the defendant revoked the termination of the workplace skill development training course conducted against the plaintiff on October 31, 2019 and the suspension of entrustment and recognition for six months.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is the representative of C School, which is a training establishment for vocational skills development in Suwon-si B (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff School").

B. On December 25, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract with the Defendant for the occupational categories for national key and strategic industries pursuant to Article 16 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “Vocational Skills Development Act”) (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”).

○ Training Institution: Plaintiff School

○ Training course: A training course in the case of the instant training course for training of a training team for training of a class of smart electric automatic control facilities (electric technicians) (hereinafter referred to as “training course”).

O NAS occupational categories: Maintenance and maintenance of automatic control systems

○ Training Period: From March 11, 2019 to December 31, 2019, the Defendant conducted on-site inspections of the Plaintiff’s school on September 26, 2019 pursuant to Article 58 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, and discovered that the Plaintiff’s training instructor D is running on-site training of electric technicians during the training hours of the instant training course.

D. After holding a hearing, on October 31, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition to terminate the instant consignment contract and to restrict the entrustment and recognition of the relevant process for six months (from November 1, 2019 to April 30, 2020) on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

○ Grounds for Disposition: Voluntary change of training content (time table) or non-compliance;

○ Applicable Acts and subordinate statutes: Article 16(2)3 of the Vocational Skills Development Act, Article 6 [Attachment I] 2.3] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

A. The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have arbitrarily changed the time table, and thus did not violate the instant consignment contract. Even if the Plaintiff violated the instant consignment contract, it does not constitute “a violation of the consignment contract to the extent that it would violate the purpose of training.” The reasons are as follows. 1) The Plaintiff’s school initially indicated the name of the instant training course as “electric engineer training team” from the beginning, and organized the NCS major subject by setting the training goal as “acquisition of the qualification certificate as an electric engineer.” Therefore, the progress of the issue pool related to the instant subject among the issues involving the withdrawal of the qualification certificate as an electrical engineer in the instant training course corresponds to the purpose and contents of the instant training course. Moreover, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff arbitrarily changed the time table with the intention of carrying out the call-up problem related to the instant subject to the instant subject to training to the extent that it does not interfere with Jindo.

2) The Defendant asserts that D had proceeded with a pool of electrical engineer questions during the total of 1:3 o'clocks from September 3, 2019 to September 26, 2019 (one to two o'clocks from September 26, 2019 on the day of the inspection) during the total of 32 o'clocks (see, e.g., the 6th page of the reply), but in fact, the hours during which the pool of the said electrical engineer questions is in progress are only 12 o'clocks from September 17, 2019 to September 26, 2019 to the total of 1 to 2 o'clocks from September 26, 2019.

B. Even if a breach of contract is recognized, the instant disposition is subject to heavy damage compared to the degree of the breach, and heavy disposition in comparison with similar cases, and thus, the instant disposition is in violation of the principle of proportionality, in view of the following: (a) the selection of an exemplary training institution is revoked due to the instant disposition and no benefit therefrom is granted; and (b) the instant disposition becomes disadvantaged in the future evaluation of the integration of workplace skill development training courses.

3. Relevant statutes;

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

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 16(2)3 and (7) of the Regulations on the Development of Vocational Skills provide that anyone who has commissioned workplace skill development training may request the commissioned person to correct the workplace skill development training in violation of the consignment contract or terminate the consignment contract. Article 13(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that the standards for specific measures such as the request for correction and the termination of consignment contract shall be determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor in consideration of whether the entrusted person intentionally or with gross negligence, and the degree and frequency of the violation. Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides detailed measures [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills upon delegation. According to [Attachment Table 1], “where workplace skill development training is conducted in violation of the consignment agreement” is classified into “where the entrusted person violates the consignment contract to the extent that it will violate the purpose of training, such as training period, organization of classes, training instructors, training place, training facilities and equipment, etc., or where the entrusted person violates the consignment agreement within one year or one-year one-year two restrictions on entrustment.”

The Defendant issued the instant disposition on the premise that the Plaintiff’s breach of contract constitutes “cases where the commission contract is violated to the extent that it would violate the purpose of training” in the above [Attachment Table 1]’s “training period, training hours, class organization, training instructors, training places, training facilities and equipment, etc.,” and thus, this case’s disposition is examined as to whether it falls under this case’s above.

B. Confirmation of facts causing the disposition

The fact that instructors D, during their class hours, did not dispute between the parties, but there was a dispute as to how much the class hours were taught in the same form.

According to Gap evidence No. 15, Eul evidence No. 15, No. 1, 5, and 8, the defendant has received a written confirmation (hereinafter referred to as the "written confirmation of this case") that five persons, such as D at the time of the on-site inspection of the plaintiff's school on September 26, 2019, including E, who are scheduled to undergo the written examination of the plaintiff's school on September 26, 2019, the defendant has no reason to view "the date of the on-site inspection" as non-compliance with the schedule No. 1 to 200 hours from September 3, 2019 (from September 2, 2019 to September 3, 2019), it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff violated the above 9-day electrical engineer's written confirmation and the above inspection schedule, which was signed by the plaintiff on September 26, 2019 to September 1 to 36, 19-6 days from the date of the on-site inspection.

The following are examined as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition based on these factual relations. Whether the instant consignment contract is violated or not.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff violated the instant consignment contract by maintaining and maintaining the Central Control Control Group and running an electric engineer's writing during the class hours of the water transformation equipment design. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

1) Article 2(4) of the instant consignment contract provides that “The method and content of the training shall be the same as that of registration and management in the workplace skill development information network recognized by the Defendant.”

Meanwhile, Article 19(1) of the Vocational Skills Development Act provides that anyone who intends to operate a workplace skill development training course shall obtain recognition from the Minister of Employment and Labor. Article 17(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that only training courses meeting the requirements prescribed by the Minister of Employment and Labor, such as training hours and training contents, can be recognized as a workplace skill development training course under the same Act. Accordingly, when applying for the instant training course (hereinafter “application for the instant training course”), the Plaintiff specified the training hours for each subject, training instructors, training materials, etc., and the Defendant examined whether to approve the training course based on the above application and recognized the training course as a vocational training course

In addition, Article 2(5) of the instant consignment contract provides that "where a plaintiff conducts training, it shall comply with all the matters stipulated in the Regulations on the Implementation of Workplace Skill Development Training for the Disabled, etc. (Notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2018-107, Jan. 1, 2019; hereinafter referred to as the "Notice of this case")." However, according to Article 54(1) of the instant Notification, it is possible to apply for an alteration of the consignment contract in principle, but the important matters of training such as the number

In full view of the contents and purport of the relevant provisions, and the contents of the instant consignment contract, it is reasonable to deem that taking classes different from those recognized by the Defendant by running other subjects in the class hours of the pertinent subject as determined in the instant training course is contrary to the instant consignment contract.

2) The instant training courses are organized separately from the maintenance and maintenance of central control monitoring teams and the design subjects for water transformation facilities. The details of the subjects of electric technicians are mainly to prepare for the examination of electric technicians. Therefore, it may be evaluated that D proceeds in the completion of the class of electric technicians at the class hours of the water transformation facilities design.

3) The instant training courses are classified into NCS subjects and nonNCS subjects. While the central control monitoring team maintenance and maintenance subjects and the design subjects of water transformation equipment are included in the NCS subjects, there are differences in that the subjects of electric technicians written are included in the NCS subjects.

4) The Plaintiff separately set the teaching materials for the maintenance and maintenance of the Central Control Monitoring Team and for the training of the training subjects for the transformation equipment design, and obtained approval after filing an application for the instant training course, D did not proceed with the lessons for the pertinent subject and proceeded with the problem pool of electrical technicians. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that it is not allowed for the Defendant to add a voluntary replacement of the training materials as the grounds for disposition, but the above grounds for disposition (voluntary replacement of the training materials) are the same as the grounds for disposition of this case and its basic factual relations, and thus, it is allowed to add such grounds for disposition.

D. Whether an entrustment contract has been violated to the extent that it would violate the training purpose

In full view of the facts and circumstances described in paragraph (c) above, and the overall purport of the arguments and evidence mentioned above, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff violated the entrustment contract to the extent that it violates the training purpose with respect to the important matters of the training course, such as training hours. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

1) The objective of the instant training course includes not only the acquisition of a qualification certificate as electrical engineer but also the occupational categories related to the installation, maintenance, and repair of the automatic control system, and the occupational categories related to the management of electric facilities, etc. In light of the purpose and purport of the occupational ability development training conducted to improve the job performance required for the occupation, the acquisition of a qualification certificate as electrical engineer cannot be the final and ultimate goal of the instant training course. In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff specified the training contents and time for each subject at the time of application for the instant training course and that the Defendant reviewed and approved it based on the above application, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff violated an entrustment contract to the extent that the training of a specific subject is not properly conducted, and it cannot be viewed as different even if the education was conducted for the acquisition of a qualification certificate as electrical engineer

2) As seen earlier, D carried out the problem pool of electrical engineers for 15: (a) the maintenance and maintenance class for the Central Control Monitoring Team maintenance and maintenance class on September 2019; and (b) the total of 32:32:00 hours (hours); (c) the maintenance and maintenance subject for the Central Control Monitoring Team maintenance and design for the water transformation equipment was organized for 70 hours; and (d) 65 hours in the instant training course; (e) as such, the maintenance subject for the Central Control Monitoring Team maintenance and the design for the water transformation equipment was not carried out for approximately 21% in terms of class hours; and (e) the maintenance subject for the water transformation equipment design at approximately 26% in terms of the water transformation equipment design. In particular, in the case of the subjects for the water transformation equipment design, it is difficult to carry out the relevant work unless the training was carried out to the extent above.

E. Whether the instant disposition is against the principle of proportionality

1) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the relevant disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest purpose to achieve by the relevant disposition, and all relevant circumstances. In this case, even if the criteria for a punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance of the Ministry, it is nothing more than that prescribed within the administrative agency’s internal business affairs rules, and thus externally binding upon citizens or courts. Thus, the legality of the relevant disposition should be determined not only by the above criteria for disposition but also by the provisions and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Therefore, the relevant disposition cannot be deemed legitimate merely because it conforms to the criteria for disposition. However, unless the above criteria for disposition do not conform with the Constitution or laws, or unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the result of the application of the criteria is significantly unreasonable in light of the content of the offense as the grounds for disposition and the purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it shall not be determined that the disposition in accordance with the criteria has exceeded discretion or abused discretion (see, etc.

2) As to the instant case, the following circumstances are revealed in light of the purport of the entire arguments on the evidence as seen earlier: (i) the content of the instant disposition is determined pursuant to Article 6 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act; (ii) the above [Attachment Table 1] criteria do not in itself conform with the Constitution or laws; or the result of the application of the above standards is not considerably unreasonable in light of the content of the act of violation and the purport of the relevant statutes; (iii) the Defendant issued the instant disposition by reducing the period of the restriction on entrustment and recognition by 1/2 compared to the prior notice given in consideration of the details and degree of the act of violation; (iv) in the case of vocational ability development training conducted in the form of the consignment contract as seen in the instant case, it is necessary to obtain and improve the job ability development necessary for vocational ability development; (v) guarantee the workers’ training opportunity; and (v) in order to provide workers with high-quality training, it cannot be seen that the Plaintiff’s liability cannot be seen that the instant disposition violates the principle of proportionality or abuse of discretionary power.

5. Conclusion

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