(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.7.7. 선고 2015구합13024 판결

On October 8, 2015, the Defendant issued a restriction on the recognition of the entrustment of three months (from October 9, 2015 to January 8, 2016) to the Plaintiff’s training course and the entire process of the Hague-based comprehensive training course; ② revocation of recognition of the training course of the Hague-based comprehensive training course and one year and three months (from October 9, 2015 to January 8, 2017) to the relevant course and the same process; ③ a restriction on the recognition of entrustment; ③ a disposition on the return of the illegally received amount to KRW 3,894,830; and a disposition on the imposition of KRW 3,894,830 to the additional collection amount to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is the representative of the 'BP Special School' (hereinafter referred to as the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ' the ' the ' the ' the '

B. On September 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) conducted an inspection on the instant vocational technical school; (b) conducted an inspection on the instant vocational technical school; (c) changed five trainees of the Hague-U.S. comprehensive class classes into four-day class; and (d) applied training expenses to the Defendant as if three trainees of the Hague-U.S. comprehensive class courses participated in other training courses; (c) applied for training expenses to the Defendant and received subsidies of KRW 3,894,830 for training expenses; (d) four regular class classes among nine trainees who were present at the Hague-U.S. comprehensive class class; (e) two regular class classes; and (e) three persons in another lecture course; and (e) three separate class classes; and (e) three separate class classes; and (e) three additional collection and notification measures for the Hague-U.S. comprehensive class classes; (e) three separate classes and notification measures for the revocation of recognition and notification of the instant comprehensive class 30; and (iii) three separate class 1 and 4 different class 8.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The absence of a ground for the first disposition

In light of the fact that trainees of the Hague-U.S. Comprehensive Training Team are extinguishing the Hague-U.S. curriculum more rapid than the scheduled training plan and acquire the qualification certificate, the Plaintiff’s additional training is demanded and another training course is conducted inevitably, so long as trainees obtain the qualification certificate, it can be said that the training course has been achieved to some extent, and that the training course is included not only in the Hague but also in the training course, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a violation of the contents recognized to the extent that it violates the purpose of training, and thus, the Defendant must issue a corrective order to the Plaintiff.

(ii) the absence of the reasons for the disposition Nos. 2 and 3 and deviation and abuse of discretionary power;

The Plaintiff is entitled to take part in the other training courses due to bullying among students in the Hague-U.S. Comprehensive Training Courses. The Plaintiff’s participation in the other training courses by reflecting the intention of the trainees concerned. The relevant trainees took part in the training courses instead of the Hague-U.S. Comprehensive Training Courses, the training courses of the Hague-U.S. Comprehensive Training Group, the training courses of the PH-U.S. Comprehensive Training Group, the training courses of the PH-U.S. and the EN-U. Basic Training Courses are identical in the cost of training, and the Plaintiff’s economic benefits were not paid due to the Plaintiff’s failure to claim training expenses for the PH-U. General Training Courses. According to the instruction of the vocational training course by the Office of Education, the Plaintiff is included in the training courses of the PH-U.S. and the EN-U. Research and Development Training Institution, which is a training institution that is an abuse of discretionary power. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been found to have been found to have been subject to any abuse of discretionary power.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 19(1) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, a person who intends to operate a combined training course shall obtain “recognition” from the Minister of Employment and Labor. According to Article 19(4) of the same Act and Article 17(1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof, the Minister of Employment and Labor may “recognition of a combined training course as an account-based training course with respect to a training course that meets the requirements set by the Minister of Employment and Labor, such as training period and time, teachers and instructors

In addition, according to Article 19 (2) (5) of the Vocational Skills Development Act, if a person who operates a training course after being recognized as a "recognition of a training course" has violated the contents of the "recognition, the Minister of Employment and Labor may cancel the "recognition of a training course", and according to Article 19 (3) of the same Act, with respect to a person whose "recognition" has been cancelled, the "entrustment of vocational skills development training" or "recognition of a training course for workplace skill development training or a training course for account for a certain period."

On the other hand, according to Article 10 of the former Regulations on Assistance to Workplace Skill Development Training for Workers (amended by the Ministry of Employment and Labor Notice No. 2015-84, Nov. 30, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "Support Regulations"), a person who is recognized as a training course may change a list of trainees within a certain period from the date of commencement of the training and report the change to the Information Network for Workplace Skill Development (HR-Net).

2) Whether there exist grounds for a disposition No. 1

A) According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, it can be acknowledged that the training courses of the Hague master's class are reported as "the qualification of a national beauty artist (general)", "the development of professional ability available for field duties, and the development of ability and attitude to cope with various practical problems that may arise at the site", "20 days for the training days of the Hague master's class," "1200 hours for the plaintiff's training days for the defendant," "200 hours for the total training hours for the Hague master's class (942 hours for the practical period, 258 hours)," and "7,503,600 won for each person".

B) The above facts and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are written in Eul evidence No. 9, and the purpose of the pleading is added to the whole purport of the pleading, namely, the following circumstances: ① The training courses are aimed at cultivating on-site duties and practical ability, in addition to the acquisition of qualification certificates as a national technical qualification artist, and accordingly, the training days and hours are long-term; thus, even if other training courses are conducted at the request of some trainees who have obtained qualification certificates, they cannot be deemed as minor violations; ② The training courses and the training courses and the skins, the class, the class, the class, the class, and the training methods are different; ② The above courses are divided into two categories based on NCS (National Skill Standards, NB), and the training standards are the same as the training standards for the above courses, and the Plaintiff’s act cannot be seen as violating the purpose of the training. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s act cannot be seen as an act in violation of this part of the training courses.

3) In addition to the existence of the grounds for disposition 2, 3, and the existence of the grounds for disposition 2, 3, and the deviation and abuse of discretionary power, and whether the grounds for disposition 2, 3, as well as the deviation and abuse of discretionary power, the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the facts recognized earlier and the overall purport of the arguments under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, namely, ① as if three trainees who did not participate in the Hague Basic History Process participated in the Hague Basic History Process, applied for training expenses to the Defendant and received subsidies for training expenses; ② The above act of the Plaintiff was directly and indirectly affected in determining whether to pay training expenses for three trainees who are not entitled to receive training expenses; ③ the Enforcement Rule of the Vocational Skills Development Act [Attachment 1-2] 2, 2, 2, 2-2, 2) provides that the revocation of recognition and the restriction on recognition of entrustment process shall be imposed in accordance with the disposition standards set out in the above provision.

In full view of the fact that the above disposition standards do not conform with the Constitution or laws or that it is difficult to deem that there is a reasonable ground to recognize that the sanction is considerably unfair in light of the content of the offense and the content and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the Plaintiff’s act of receiving training fees of KRW 3,894,830 by filing an application for training fees with the Defendant as if the Plaintiff participated in the other training courses, and then the act of receiving training fees of KRW 3,894,830 constitutes “the case where the expenses were subsidized or loaned by false or other unjust means,” and further, there is no error of deviation or abuse of discretionary power in the second and third dispositions. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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