2013Nu174 Revocation of restrictions on entrustment, etc.

A

The President of the Gwangju Regional Labor Agency

Gwangju District Court Decision 2010Guhap498 Decided November 21, 2013

April 17, 2014

May 1, 2014

1. The part against the defendant, which exceeds the subsequent order for revocation, among the part concerning the additional collection of judgment in the first instance, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall

The Defendant’s disposition of additional collection of KRW 7,071,640 against the Plaintiff on January 22, 2010, exceeding KRW 741,60,00, shall be revoked.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. One-six of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s disposition to restrict the recognition of entrustment for six months (from February 25, 2010 to August 24, 2010) of the entire course on January 22, 2010 to the Plaintiff, to restrict the entrustment and recognition of one year (from February 25, 2010 to February 24, 201) of the pertinent training course, to return 7,071,640 won of the training course, to additionally collect 7,071,640 won of the unlawfully received training expenses, to additionally collect 7,071,640 won of the training expenses, to restrict the payment for one year of vocational skills development training expenses, and to revoke the designation of a designated vocational training facility on January 29, 2010.

In the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the defendant, excluding the part of payment restriction for vocational skills development training costs for one year, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's explanation on this case is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes) in addition to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○○ Additional Collection of KRW 7,071,640,000 shall be made as follows:

According to Article 16 (6) 1 (a) and (b) of the former Vocational Development Act, Article 13-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 6 (1) 1 (a) and 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, where the amount subsidized by fraud or other improper means is less than KRW 1,00,000 by a person whose entrustment contract is terminated, an administrative agency may additionally collect an amount equivalent to five times the amount subsidized (where there is no number of times requested for expenses by fraud or other improper means during the five years prior to the date of detection of the violation, an amount equivalent to three times the amount subsidized by such fraud or other improper means), if the amount subsidized by such person is less than KRW 1,00,00,000.

With respect to the instant case, the Defendant considered the Plaintiff’s illegal receipt amount as KRW 7,071,640, and issued a disposition to additionally collect the amount corresponding thereto. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s training expenses paid by false or other unlawful means are 247,200, and there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff had previously filed a claim for expenses by false or other unlawful means, according to the above provisions, the Defendant may additionally collect KRW 741,60,300, which is KRW 247,200,000, which is 741,60,000, and the above additional collection disposition is lawful within the scope of KRW 741,60, and the exceeding part shall be revoked.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant who ordered the revocation exceeding the above recognition amount among the part concerning the additional collection disposition of the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, it is revoked, the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge Park Byung-il

Judges Kim Jae-ho

Judges Lee So-hee