2019Nu37358 Order and revocation of a decision of additional collection, etc.

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

Attorney Lee Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiffs

The Deputy Director General of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

Incheon District Court Decision 2017Gudan50147 Decided January 22, 2019

April 25, 2019

May 16, 2019

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed. 2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On October 14, 2016, the Defendant issued an order to return KRW 2,71,170, KRW 2,71,170, KRW 30, KRW 30, KRW 30, KRW 300, KRW 367,00, KRW 360, KRW 50, KRW 60, KRW 360, KRW 50, KRW 60, KRW 360, KRW 60, KRW 360, KRW 60, KRW 360, KRW 80, KRW 60, KRW 60, KRW 306, KRW 70, KRW 506, KRW 80, KRW 60, KRW 306, KRW 60, KRW 360, KRW 40, KRW 506, KRW 706, KRW 506, KRW 300, KRW 560, KRW 300, KRW 560, KRW 300, KRW 930, and

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiffs is revoked. On October 14, 2016, the order of return of KRW 2,71,170, additional collection of KRW 2,711,170, and the order of return of KRW 3,212,00, additional collection of KRW 3,212,00, and additional collection of KRW 5,367,060 against Plaintiff C, and the order of return of KRW 5,367,060, additional collection of KRW 5,60, KRW 360, KRW 367,08,540, KRW 360, KRW 60, KRW 360, KRW 60, KRW 60, KRW 360, KRW 60, KRW 560, KRW 60, KRW 208, KRW 2,000, KRW 2,000, KRW 760, KRW 97, KRW 506, KRW 709, KRW 1606.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance to the corresponding part, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

【Supplementary Parts】

The following is added to the 6th 11th 6th 11th “Non-compliance.” (It is found that the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a written response related to the illegal supply and demand of a business owner, but this is merely a fact that the Defendant requested the Defendant to submit a written investigation to investigate the facts prior to the instant disposition after the period for voluntary report expires, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff voluntarily reported to

0 8.15.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00..00...00....

○ 11. The following shall be added to the 18th page below:

In the event that the training expenses are paid by credit card, the Plaintiffs asserts that there is no negligence on the Plaintiffs since the payment date of the training expenses is earlier than the refund date. If some of the Plaintiffs paid by credit card, it is recognized that the payment date of the training expenses is earlier than the refund date, but the card payment method and the issuance method of tax invoice are mixed, and if a tax invoice is issued, it is recognized that the payment date of the training expenses is later than the refund date, and it seems that the issuance of a false tax invoice is attached. In addition, in addition, the Plaintiffs did not confirm whether the AZ has properly trained the childcare teachers under their jurisdiction and paid the AZ with the payment of the training expenses. The Plaintiffs’ assertion in this part is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit.

The presiding judge, judge and charter

Judges Dok-type

Judge Lee Young-young