2015Gudan5298 Revocation of Disposition, such as an order to refund expenses for workplace skill development training

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6, F

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

10. J

11. K;

12. L.

13. M;

14.N

15.O

16. P;

Q. Q.

18. R

19. S;

20. Telecommunication

21. U;

22. V

23.W;

24. X

25. Y

26. Z;

27. AA

28. AB

29. AC

30. AD;

31. AE;

32. AF;

33. AG;

34. AH;

35. AI;

36. AJ

37. AK;

38. AL;

39. AM;

40.N;

41.AO

42. AP;

43. A Q.

44. AR

45. AS

46, AT

47. AU

48. AV

49, AW

X

51. AY.

52.AZ.

Head of Central and Central Regional Employment and Labor Agency:

May 18, 2016

June 15, 2016

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Defendant was dated December 2014, 26.

1) Ordering the return of KRW 1,180,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of KRW 1,180,000, additional collection of KRW 1,180,000 against Plaintiff A;

2) Ordering the return of KRW 2,512,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of KRW 2,512,00 against Plaintiff B, and disposition additionally collecting KRW 2,512,00 for additional collection;

3) Ordering the return of KRW 352,00,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff C, and additional collection of KRW 352,00,00;

4) Ordering the return of KRW 1,584,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of KRW 1,584,00 against Plaintiff D, additional collection of KRW 1,584,00;

5) Ordering the return of KRW 396,00,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses for Plaintiff E, and additional collection of KRW 396,00,00;

6) Ordering the return of KRW 616,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff F and additional collection of KRW 616,000 against Plaintiff F;

7) Ordering the return of KRW 628,00,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses for Plaintiff G and additional collection of KRW 628,000 for the employer’s occupational ability development training expenses;

8) Ordering the return of KRW 1,056,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff H and additional collection of KRW 1,056,000 for the employer’s occupational ability development training expenses;

9) Ordering the return of KRW 2,072,00 to Plaintiff I’s workplace skill development training expenses, and additional collection of KRW 2,072,00 to Plaintiff I;

10) Ordering the return of the workplace skill development training costs of KRW 1,620,00 to Plaintiff J and additional collection of KRW 1,620,000;

11) Ordering the return of the workplace skill development training costs of KRW 748,00 to Plaintiff K and additional collection of KRW 748,000;

12) Ordering the return of the workplace skill development training costs of KRW 464,00,00 against Plaintiff K, and additional collection of KRW 464,00,00;

13) Ordering the return of KRW 484,00,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses for Plaintiff L and additional collection of KRW 484,00;

14) Ordering the Plaintiff M to return KRW 352,00,000 for workplace skill development training expenses, and additional collection of KRW 352,00,00;

15) Ordering the return of KRW 176,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff N and additional collection of KRW 176,000;

16) Ordering the return of KRW 904,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of Plaintiff A and the additional collection of KRW 904,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of Plaintiff P, 17) Ordering the return of KRW 420,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of Plaintiff P, 420,000 for the occupational ability development training expenses of Plaintiff P, 18) Ordering the return of KRW 764,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of Plaintiff Q, and additional collection of KRW 764,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses

19) Ordering the return of KRW 1,024,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of KRW 1,024,00 for the Plaintiff and additional collection of KRW 1,024,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of KRW 804,00 for the Plaintiff S., ordering the return of KRW 804,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of KRW 804,00, additional collection of KRW 804,000 for the workplace skill development training expenses of KRW 21, ordering the return of KRW 1,316,00 for the Plaintiff T, additional collection of KRW

22) Ordering the return of KRW 176,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of KRW 176,00, additional collection of KRW 176,000 against Plaintiff U; and 23) Ordering the return of KRW 924,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff V; additional collection of KRW 924,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff V;

24) Ordering the return of the workplace skill development training costs of KRW 728,00, 728,000 to Plaintiff W, additional collection of KRW 728,00, and 25) Ordering the return of KRW 1,092,00 to Plaintiff X, the additional collection of KRW 1,092,00 for the workplace skill development training costs of Plaintiff X;

B. The Defendant was 12,30.30

1) Ordering the return of the workplace skill development training costs of KRW 3,148,00 against PlaintiffY and disposition additionally collecting KRW 3,148,000;

2) Ordering the return of 672,00 won and additional collection of 672,00 won against the Plaintiff Z;

3) Ordering the return of 484,00 won and additional collection of 484,00 won against the Plaintiff Z;

4) Ordering the return of KRW 1,760,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of KRW 1,760,000, additional collection of KRW 1,760,000 against Plaintiff B;

5) Ordering the return of KRW 264,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff A and additional collection of KRW 264,000 against Plaintiff A;

6) Ordering the return of KRW 696,00,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff AB and additional collection of KRW 696,00,00;

7) Ordering the return of the workplace skill development training costs of KRW 784,00,00 against Plaintiff AC and additional collection of KRW 784,00,00;

8) Ordering the return of the workplace skill development training costs of KRW 2,224,00 against Plaintiff AD and disposition additionally collecting KRW 2,224,00,00;

9) Ordering the return of KRW 1,092,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff AE, and additional collection of KRW 1,092,00 for additional collection against Plaintiff AE;

10) Ordering the return of KRW 1,056,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff AF and additional collection of KRW 1,056,000 for the employer’s occupational ability development training expenses;

11) Ordering the return of KRW 1,320,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff AG and additional collection of KRW 1,320,000 for the said expenses;

12) Ordering the return of KRW 1,048,00,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff AH, and additional collection of KRW 1,048,00;

13) Ordering the return of the workplace skill development training costs of KRW 1,424,00 against the Plaintiff AI and additional collection of KRW 1,424,00;

14) Ordering the Plaintiff AJ to return the workplace skill development training costs of KRW 584,00 and additional collection of KRW 584,000;

15) Ordering the return of KRW 528,00,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses for the Plaintiff and K and additional collection of KRW 528,000;

16) Ordering the return of KRW 1,716,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of KRW 1,716,00, additional collection of KRW 1,716,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of KRW 2,828,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of Plaintiff AM; disposition ordering the return of KRW 2,828,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of Plaintiff AM; disposition imposing additional collection of KRW 2,828,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of KRW 1,156,00 for the occupational ability development training expenses of Plaintiff AL; disposition imposing additional collection of KRW 1

19) Ordering Plaintiff AO to return KRW 220,00 for workplace skill development training expenses, additional collection of KRW 220,000, KRW 200 for Plaintiff AP; and 20) Ordering Plaintiff AP to return KRW 904,00 for workplace skill development training expenses; additional collection of KRW 904,000 for Plaintiff A; and 21) Ordering Plaintiff A to return KRW 652,00 for workplace skill development training expenses; and

22) Ordering the return of the workplace skill development training costs of KRW 376,00, 376,000, additional collection of KRW 370,000 against Plaintiff A, 23) Ordering the return of KRW 748,00,00 for the workplace skill development training costs of Plaintiff A, and additional collection of KRW 748,00 against Plaintiff A;

24) The order of return of KRW 308,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff A, the order of return of KRW 308,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff A, the order of return of KRW 760,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff AU, the order of return of KRW 760,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff A, the order of return of KRW 740,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff A, the order of return of KRW 740,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff A, the disposition of additional collection of KRW 752,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff A, the order of return of KRW 752,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff A, the disposition of additional collection of KRW 2,036,00 for KRW 2,00 for the workplace skill development training expenses of Plaintiff A, and the disposition of additional collection for KRW 29 for Plaintiff A.

C. As of February 4, 2015, the Defendant:

1) Ordering the return of 140,800 won and additional collection of 140,800 won against the Plaintiff AZ;

Each revocation Judgment

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs entered into an entrustment contract with the head of the Education Development Institute (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the Education Development Institute”) which was recognized as vocational ability training courses by the Minister of Employment and Labor, as the persons operating each child-care center at the Council members, such as the Council-Si, Yang-si, and Yang-si, and conducted the workplace skill development training course for the childcare center teachers under his/her jurisdiction (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant training courses”) between August 15, 201 and February 26, 2013.

B. All of the training courses of this case are conducted by the trainees using the training teaching materials in the print media delivered from the training course, and the training course was conducted by the distance training method in which the trainees have access to the training course management system on the training website of the head education site at least once a week and participated in the evaluation at least once a month. The results of the evaluation during the training period of the trainees must be at least 60 points. After all, the Plaintiffs were paid subsidies for the training course of this case to the Human Resources Development Service of Korea who is delegated with the duties of subsidizing training expenses by the Defendant, as stated in the purport of the claim.

D. As a result of investigating into the supply of workplace skill development training subsidies under the Plaintiffs’ names, the Seoul Regional Police Agency’s metropolitan investigation group discovered the fact that the training completion registration was made by falsely reporting the completion of training by means of manipulating the details of computerized information of the training program using forged programs, and inputting false computerized information data as if the trainees directly prepared a training site and a test site (hereinafter “instant misconduct”).

E. Accordingly, the defendant issued a disposition to state the purport of the claim against the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs were subsidized with training costs by fraud or other improper means (hereinafter collectively referred to as "each of the above dispositions").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 55, Eul evidence 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

Even if each of the training courses of this case was conducted poorly, the plaintiffs were erroneous, and did not participate in the training course. The plaintiffs applied for subsidies to believe that the training course of this case was conducted properly, and thus, they cannot be deemed to have received training costs by false or other unlawful means. The plaintiffs did not have any intention, negligence, and responsibility for the unlawful act of this case. In addition, there is no fact that the plaintiffs recruited the training course of this case and the unlawful act of this case.

(2) Violation of the proportionality principle

Even if the plaintiffs are liable, the instant disposition is against the principle of proportionality and is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the following facts can be acknowledged:

(1) When concluding an entrustment contract with the plaintiffs, the head of the education completed the training and completed the training. Training fees are to be refunded in full. After entering into an entrustment contract with the plaintiffs, the teachers belonging to childcare centers operated by the plaintiffs were registered as trainees. The training course, training period, training expenses, and trainees are not in the form of a training entrustment contract, and each of the above contents was decided voluntarily on the basis of the teachers' list of teachers who were provided by the plaintiffs.

(2) In order to collect each of the instant training courses, trainees shall have access to the training management system of the head education website at least once a week, conduct the Jindo management procedure, participate in the evaluation at least once a month, and obtain points at least 60 points from each evaluation. Teachers belonging to childcare centers registered as trainees shall receive training materials delivered by mail and confirm the receipt of books, and have access to the training materials first once to the training management system of the head education website, and thereafter have not completed the education management and monthly evaluation, or completed and submitted the Jindo management and monthly evaluation.

(3) The head education operated a computer system using a forged program that quiz pool for each parking system, Jindo management, and monthly evaluation answer, etc., to automatically prepare and register the aforementioned learning management system, thereby registering the completion of the training course as if the above teachers directly participated in lectures and applied for monthly evaluation, and issued a certificate and certificate of completion to the above teachers. (4) After reporting the completion of the training course for the above teachers, the head education completed the training course with the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and then prepared an application for subsidies for workplace skill development training in the name of the plaintiffs and sent them to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs submitted the above application for subsidies received from the head education to the Human Resources Development Service of Korea, and received a report and application for subsidies as if the teachers under his/her jurisdiction completed the training course in a normal manner.

D. Determination

(1) Whether grounds for action exist

(A) Sanction against a violation of administrative laws is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of administrative laws to achieve administrative purposes, and thus, it may be imposed even if there is no intentional or negligent act on the part of the violator, barring special circumstances, such as where the violator’s failure to perform his/her duties is not caused (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003). “False or other unlawful means for which an order for return and a sanction for additional collection may be issued under Article 56(2) and (3) of the Vocational Skills Development Act” refers to any unlawful act conducted by a person who is not generally entitled to receive, in order to conceal the eligibility for payment or lack of eligibility to receive training fees (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4272, Jun. 11, 2009).

(B) In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs received subsidies from the Defendants by fraud or other improper means, and the Plaintiffs’ liability is recognized.

(1) Even if the plaintiffs entrusted the training courses of this case to the chief education, they are obligated to confirm whether each of the training courses of this case is being conducted through proper procedures if they want to receive vocational skills development training from the Minister of Employment and Labor. Before applying for subsidies, the teachers registered as trainees of each of the training courses of this case are obligated to manage and confirm whether they completed the training course by carrying out lectures and participating in the evaluation of Jindo management. However, even though they failed to perform their duties and submitted to the defendant the application for subsidies for vocational skills development training of business owners who were transferred from the senior education without going through any verification procedure, it cannot be deemed that the errors in the management of the above plaintiffs were insignificant. It is difficult to view that the plaintiffs applied for subsidies from the chief education before entering into a contract for entrusted training as follows: "It is difficult to view that the head education students were aware of the training course of this case in the senior education, and that the training course of this case was completed at will, and whether the training courses of this case were completed at will, the number of trainees and training courses of this case."

c) If the Defendant had known such fact, it would be deemed that the Plaintiffs did not pay the subsidies to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ above act should be deemed to have influenced the decision-making on the payment of subsidies as a fraudulent act committed by a business owner who is not entitled to receive subsidies under the disguised eligibility.

(C) In addition, as to whether the plaintiffs conspired with the education for the principal and the unlawful act of this case, the defendant did not have the grounds for the disposition of this case, and the above assertion by the plaintiffs is not reasonable without any need for further review.

(2) Whether the principle of proportionality is violated

In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the purport of the aforementioned facts and the entire pleadings, each of the instant dispositions, even considering the various circumstances alleged by the Plaintiffs, cannot be deemed as violating the principle of proportionality.

In other words, as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs received subsidies by unlawful means and received subsidies for a long period of time, and the frequency and amount of the fraudulent act is not significant, and both the amount of illegal receipt and additional collection ordered by the Defendant and the amount of occupational ability development training is conducted in accordance with the standards prescribed by the relevant statutes, such as the Vocational Skills Development Act. Workplace skill development training is conducted to improve workers’ necessary job performance and to prevent the unlawful receipt of training expenses. In order to prevent the unfair payment of training expenses, the management of the trainees’ application and completion should be thoroughly conducted, and the trust and fairness thereof may be harmed by the foundation of the workplace skill development training system. Each of the dispositions in this case may be detrimental to the Plaintiffs who committed such unlawful acts, and at the same time, were conducted in public interest needs to prevent any unlawful act that abuse of the employment safety support system in the future. In addition, each of the dispositions in this case shall be deemed to be conducted in order to improve the disadvantage of the Plaintiffs who committed such unlawful acts, and for the efficient and transparent operation of the support system for workplace skill development training.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are all dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

For the transfer of judge

A person shall be appointed.