2012Guhap212 Revocation of non-issuance of qualification certificate of workplace skill development training instructor

A

The President of the Central Local Labor Agency

May 24, 2012

June 7, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On December 26, 2011, the defendant revoked the notification of non-issuance of qualification certificates of workplace skill development training teachers (hereinafter referred to as "training teachers") against the plaintiff on December 26, 201 (the date of the disposition stated in the complaint is clear that "30." is a clerical error, and thus correction is made).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 18, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired class 3 training instructors’ machine processing certificate, and obtained class 3 training teachers’ industrial facility license on January 27, 201.

B. From December 5, 201 to December 16, 2011, the Plaintiff completed a training course for improving class 2 for the mechanical processing of training teachers at the training center for the development of the skills of B University, and on December 19, 2011, applied for the issuance of a class 2 qualification certificate for the Defendant for the mechanical processing of training instructors (hereinafter “instant application”).

C. On December 26, 2011, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff excluded the experience already considered at the time of acquiring class 3 certificate of industrial facilities, among the education and training experience submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant application, the education and training experience falls short of three years and failed to meet the above requirements for granting class 2 certificate of mechanical processing” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) According to Article 4 [Attachment 1] of the Act on the Promotion of Qualifications for Workplace Skill Development Teachers, the field of "mechanic" among the occupational categories of training teachers is classified into 12 categories of mechanical processing, mechanical system, mechanical process design, factory automation, industrial equipment, etc., and education and training experience in the field of machinery can be classified into 12 categories of occupational categories among the above 12 categories of occupational categories, and where some of the career experience has already been used to acquire other qualifications, there is no express provision that it cannot be considered as the grounds for issuing the training teacher qualification certificate, and there is no other provision that does not accept the application in this case, and the defendant's "business process manual, such as the issuance of the qualification certificate for workplace skill development teacher", which is cited by the ground provision, is merely an internal work guidelines of the administrative agency, not an order with external binding force, and thus, the disposition in this case is unlawful.

(2) On November 10, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, the competent department of the Defendant, for the training for the training for the improvement of the training for the training for the B university designated by the training institution for the training for the training for the training, and entered the same career as recognized on January 27, 2011. However, on November 23, 2011, the B graduate school selected the Plaintiff as the person subject to the training for the training for the second degree improvement of the training course for the training for the training for the training for the training for the training for the Plaintiff on December 16, 2011, and completed the above training course. The instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of the law that excessively regulates the issuance of the qualification certificate for the training teacher, unlike the person subject to the training for the improvement of the training for the training for the training, and

(3) Pursuant to Article 12-2(2) and [Attachment Table 1 and 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Technical Qualifications Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23488, Jan. 6, 2012; hereinafter the same) the Ministry of Employment and Labor publicly notified pursuant to Article 12-2(2) and [Attachment Table 1 and 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Technical Qualifications Act, a number of national technical qualification can be applied for one qualification in technical and technical fields of national technical qualification and skills. In practice, a training teacher qualification certificate is not issued in accordance with the standards more strict than the national technical qualification certificate. In the Defendant’s work manual, the Defendant’s work-related manual also did not issue a training teacher qualification certificate in the case of a graduate of B University who was an industrial engineer or higher pursuant to the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Development of Workers’ Qualifications (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23488, Jan. 6, 201; hereinafter the same).

(4) In the Defendant’s work process manual, the instant disposition that did not issue class 2 training teachers’ license to the Plaintiff, on the ground that he/she again submitted the duplicate experience used at the time when he/she was issued a class 3 certificate of industrial equipment, on the ground that he/she had a training teacher qualification certificate, and that he/she had a duplicate experience, and that a person falling under class 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Technical Qualifications Act (excluding those who are subject to improvement training) is not a person who intends to additionally obtain another type of occupation or higher level of training teacher qualification (excluding those who are subject to improvement training).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 33(2) of the Workers’ Vocational Skills Development Act delegates the type, class, qualification standards, and other necessary matters to the Presidential Decree. Article 28 and [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act classify training teachers into class 1, class 2, and class 3. The career experience of the same occupation is recognized to be 100%, and the career of the same occupation is recognized to be 70%, and the career of the same occupation is delegated to the Minister of Employment and Labor with standards for recognition of training experience or work experience, qualifications of the training teacher, qualifications of the training teacher, and similar occupation. Accordingly, Article 4 and [Attachment 1] of the Public Notice of Amendment to the Criteria for Qualification of Vocational Skills Development Teachers are categorized into 23 areas of the training teacher. Article 28 and [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act defines the same Act as one type of work experience of the training teacher, which is likely to violate the qualification certificate of the training teacher in the same field. In addition, the above provision provides that the above part of the training qualification certificate is not acceptable.

(2) Although the training course for the improvement of the training instructors at B University is only one of the requirements for the issuance of the training teacher qualification certificate, it cannot be said that the certificate of qualification is issued merely because it is complete, and even if the two graduate schools recognized the overlap of the training experience and selected the Plaintiff as the person subject to the training course for the second grade improvement of the mechanical processing of the training teacher, such circumstance alone does not lead to the excessive restriction on the issuance of the training teacher qualification certificate and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff

(3) The national technical qualification system is a system which tests knowledge and skills necessary to perform duties in a project site according to certain standards and procedures, such as written tests, practical tests, and interviews, and its purport or recognition procedures differ from that of the qualification certificate system for a training teacher. Thus, even if it is possible to apply for a multiple national technical qualification examination in determining the qualification for a national technical qualification examination, such circumstance alone does not lead to an unlawful regulation that excessively regulates the issuance of a qualification certificate for a training teacher compared to the examination of the qualification for a national technical qualification examination for a training teacher. In the defendant's work process manual, among graduates of B University who were enrolled in the training course in 199 after 199, the defendant's work-related manual provides that the qualification for a training teacher is not limited in the field related to the qualification for an industrial technical teacher or higher. However, this is merely about the qualification for an industrial engineer or higher required for acquiring the 3rd training teacher qualification, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is not acceptable.

In the defendant's work process manual, "a person who holds a training teacher's qualification certificate and who intends to additionally acquire a training teacher's qualification (excluding a person subject to improvement training) for another type of job or higher class of job in addition to double experience." However, the above provision is related to the requirements for completing training courses in relation to Article 15 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Workers' Vocational Skills Development Act, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff does not require that a person who has undergone training for improvement of training like the plaintiff should not require that he/she should not have double work experience. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge, judges and vice-ranking

Judges Kim Young-young

Judges Kim Gin-jin

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.