(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.8.22. 선고 2018누77939 판결

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of 360 days support and restriction on loans, return of 5,735,680 won and additional collection of 55,735,680 won against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial together with the allegations by the Plaintiff, the judgment of the first instance court dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim is justified.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ On 4th of the first instance judgment, the 16th of the 16th of the 1st instance judgment is regarded as “training.”

The burden of proof in an administrative litigation is, in principle, distributed between the parties in accordance with the general principles of civil procedure, and in the case of an appeal litigation, there is a burden of proof as to the legitimacy of the disposition. However, if there is evidence of reasonable acceptance of the legality of a certain disposition alleged by the defendant, the disposition is justifiable, and the assertion contrary to this is returned to the plaintiff who is the other party (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du27639, Jun. 18, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2015Du42817, Oct. 27, 201, etc.). The part of the appeal by the 10th 2nd 7th 7th 2nd 2nd 1st 7th 7th 2nd 1st 7th 2nd 1st 7th 7th 2nd 1st 7th 2nd 1st 7th 2nd 1st 6th 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 3rd 3.

5) Whether the principle of protection of trust is violated

A) The plaintiff's assertion

Although the defendant was able to know about D's training misconduct through the Human Resources Development Service of Korea, from 2013 to 2016, during which D's training was conducted, the defendant recognized the vocational ability development training course every year from 2013 to 2016, and the plaintiff did not cancel the recognition of D's vocational ability development training training course until D's training subsidy was paid from the Human Resources Development Service of Korea, and did not take measures such as warning the plaintiff about D's training misconduct. The plaintiff trusted the vocational ability development training course of D's workplace skill development training recognized by the defendant and applied for a consignment training contract with D three times in total in 2013, 2014, and 2016 and received the subsidy. Thus, the disposition of this case violates the principle of trust protection.

B) Determination

In general, in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of the protection of trust to the acts of administrative agencies, the first administrative agency must express the public opinion that is subject to trust to the individual, the second administrative agency's statement of opinion is justified and trusted to the individual, and there should be no cause attributable to the individual. Third, the individual should have trusted and trusted the opinion statement. Fourth, by the administrative agency's disposition contrary to the opinion statement, the individual's trust in the name of opinion statement would result in an infringement on the individual's interest. Lastly, the administrative disposition according to the opinion statement should not be likely to seriously infringe on the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Du4718, Aug. 29, 2017).

On the other hand, Article 24 of the Vocational Skills Development Act and Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the scope of recognition shall be met, contents, validity period, etc. of workplace skill development training to a person who intends to conduct workplace skill development training after being entrusted with such workplace skill development training so that it can be recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor, and that the recognition of workplace skill development training course shall be revoked in cases where the person who has entrusted workplace skill development training received or intends to receive training costs by fraud or other improper means, or where the person who entrusted workplace skill development training has received training costs by fraud or other improper means. However, the recognition and revocation of workplace skill development training course by the Minister of Employment and Labor confirms that the workplace skill development training course has completed the training course in a normal manner, and if the training course has completed the training course in a normal manner, it is understood that the training course is subject to revocation of the recognition where it does not go beyond the original intent of promoting workplace skill development training for workers, etc., and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been in violation of the official order of the Korea Human Resources Development Service.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.