logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.01.22 2017구단50185
반환명령 및 추가징수 결정 등 취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The contents of the plaintiffs' entrusted training are 1) The representative of the K Child Care Center located in the J apartment management Dong in Kimpo-si, the representative of the plaintiff Kimpo-si L Building in Kimpo-si, the representative of the plaintiff Kimpo-si N Child Care Center located in the plaintiff Kimpo-si, the representative of the five child care center located in the plaintiff Kimpo-si, the representative of the five child care center located in the plaintiff Kimpo-si, the representative of the five child care center located in the U apartment management Dong in the plaintiff Kimpo-si, the plaintiff Kimpo-si, the plaintiff Kimpo-si, the plaintiff H AB, the AF child care center representative located in the plaintiff Kimpo-si, the AF child care center located in the plaintiff Kimpo-si, and the plaintiff I concluded an entrusted training contract with the plaintiff Kimpo-si, and submitted documents to the plaintiff under Article 27 of the Employment Insurance Act that the plaintiff completed the training expenses for the child care teacher's workplace and received the expenses for the plaintiff's workplace development training.

[In accordance with Article 8 of the Regulations on Supporting Workplace Skill Development Training for Business Operators (Public Notice of the Ministry of Employment and Labor), if they intend to receive training costs, they shall attend at least 80% of the training hours and complete the relevant training course].

(1) In the course of the investigation into AG, which is an entrusted training institution, the Incheon Bupyeong Police Station issued a false commission contract and a tax invoice as if the business owner of 488 childcare centers, including the Plaintiff, did not preferentially pay training expenses, and notified the Defendant that “the trainee did not attend the training course for at least 80% and did not meet the completion standards and received training expenses even if the trainee did not attend the training course,” and that he did not meet the completion standards and received training expenses.” (2) As a result of the investigation into the Incheon Bupyeong Police Station on April 22, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the investigation results of the Incheon Bupyeong Police Station, the details of the illegal receipt of training expenses, the administrative disposition, and the request for investigation.

arrow