logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.11.20. 선고 2012누17003 판결
직업능력개발훈련비용회수결정처분등취소
Cases

2012Nu1703. Revocation of a decision on the collection of vocational ability development training costs

Plaintiff-Appellant

A Stock Company

Defendant Appellant

The Head of Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office Seoul Southern Site

The first instance judgment

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap461 decided May 18, 2012

Conclusion of Pleadings

November 20, 2013

Imposition of Judgment

November 20, 2013

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit concerning that part shall be dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s revocation disposition on October 7, 201 with respect to the process of international business professionals, revocation of recognition, order for refund of KRW 289,060 for training expenses, order for additional collection of KRW 289,060 for training expenses, order for restriction on payment of training expenses and order for refund of KRW 1,080,041,050 for training expenses from October 21, 2008 to October 20, 209 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim on this part is dismissed.

(A) Of the Plaintiff’s claim, the part of the first instance court’s claim seeking the revocation of recognition of the process of international business professionals, the order to refund training costs of KRW 289,060, and the revocation of additional collection of KRW 289,060, which was dismissed, but was excluded from the subject of this Court’s adjudication.

Reasons

The fact that the Defendant ex officio revokes a disposition to restrict the payment of training expenses and to order the return of KRW 1,080,041,050 from October 21, 2013 to October 20, 2009 is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of these dispositions is seeking revocation of the non-existent disposition, and became illegal as there is no interest in the lawsuit. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendant among the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and

Judges

The presiding judge, senior judge and senior judge

Judges Noh Jeong-il

Judges Jeong Jae-ok

arrow