(영문) 서울행정법원 2010.11.5. 선고 2010구합23187 판결

A. On February 23, 2009, the Plaintiff was a person operating the “BAD,” and the said private teaching institute was designated as a technician exempted from the written examination, and filed a claim with the Defendant for the confirmation that 44 trainees were eligible for exemption from the written examination, asserting that at the private teaching institute on April 1, 2009, from April 1, 2009 to September 30, 2009, 2009, 2009, and that they were eligible for exemption from the written examination.

B. On October 9, 2009, the Defendant did not submit an implementation plan for education and training and a list of trainees within 30 days after the commencement of the training course, and rejected the confirmation of eligible trainees exempted from the written examination on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received normal training (hereinafter “instant rejection disposition”).

C. On December 22, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Prime Minister under the Prime Minister on the instant refusal disposition, but was dismissed on May 11, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The rejection disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) On April 20, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) sent to the Defendant an education and training implementation plan and a list of trainees; and (b) the Plaintiff submitted the above documents on the books of the person in charge, as the person in charge was informed of the employee who was seated next to the absence; and (c) accordingly, he submitted the above documents.

2) Since the Plaintiff provided normal education and training, there is no reason to issue the instant refusal disposition.

3) The Defendant did not undergo the hearing while rendering the instant refusal disposition.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant refusal disposition is unlawful or not

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the Plaintiff submitted a list of trainees on two occasions on October 5, 2009 and October 14, 2009 to the Defendant. It can be acknowledged that the trainees registered in the attendance book from April 2009 to September 20 of the same year, which was submitted as documents attached to each of the above lists, do not coincide with each other. In light of this, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was holding the confirmed list of trainees around April 20, 2009, asserting that the Plaintiff submitted the training implementation plan and the list of trainees to the Defendant on April 20, 209. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff submitted the list of trainees and trainees to the Defendant on April 20, 209, and it is insufficient to recognize this only with the evidence No. 8 alone.

Furthermore, according to Article 12 of the Regulations on the Recognition of Qualifications for Industrial Engineers and Exemption from the Written Examination, the defendant must confirm exemption from the written examination of the technician, after confirming the number of trainees and the list of those who completed the education and training life cycle submitted by an education and training institution within 30 days after the commencement of the education and training course pursuant to Article 10 of the above Regulations, and confirm exemption from the written examination of the technician. Thus, the instant rejection disposition against the plaintiff who did not submit the list of trainees is lawful (as alleged by the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff submitted the written implementation plan and the list of trainees on April 20, 209 to the defendant on April 20, 2009, considering the evidence Nos. 4 and the purport of the arguments No. 2 and No. 10, the plaintiff's remaining 1,400 hours as well as the minimum completion requirements under Article 18 of the Enforcement Rule of the National Technical Qualifications Act, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff applied for confirmation of exemption from the written examination).

2) Whether procedural violation of the disposition of refusal of this case is legitimate

Article 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall hold a hearing or hold a public hearing in certain cases, and that an administrative agency shall provide an opportunity to present its opinions even without holding a hearing or a public hearing when it imposes an obligation on the parties or imposes a restriction on their rights and interests. However, barring special circumstances, a disposition of rejection against an application is not a disposition of restricting the rights and interests of the parties, as it does not directly restrict the rights and interests of the parties, and thus, it does not constitute a "disposition restricting the rights and interests of the parties" (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du674, Nov. 28, 2003).

Therefore, there is no defect in the rejection disposition of this case on the ground that the defendant did not provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to submit his opinion, such as hearing, when making the rejection disposition of this case.

3) Intermediate conclusion

Therefore, the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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