beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E-learning Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant training institution”) that is a travel service provider that develops and sells travel products, and entered into a contract for workplace skill development training conducted by means of distance training via the Internet.
B. Pursuant to the above consignment contract, the instant training institution provided a consignment training for its employees, as shown in the separate sheet from November 9, 2013 to December 2, 2014, pursuant to the said consignment contract (hereinafter “instant training”). The Plaintiff was supported by the Defendant in total by KRW 34,006,410.
C. On July 28, 2015, which was carried out as a part of the Defendant’s plan for regular guidance and supervision of the instant training institution on July 28, 2015, the fact was discovered that the actual process was conducted as indicated in the attached Table, despite that it was a separate process, as indicated in the attached Table, with respect to the Plaintiff on January 18, 2016, “the process recognized by the Minister of Employment and Labor” was two processes: “ACE-Unscison-1”; “ACE-1”; “ACE-1” in 2014; and “ACE-1” in the case of 2014, it was discovered that it was conducted as indicated in the attached Table. On January 18, 2016, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff from receiving KRW 34,06,410 as the entrusted training fee for the Plaintiff.
For reasons, "Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers" is referred to as "Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers" before being amended by Act No. 13902, Jan. 27, 2016.
) Based on Articles 55(2)1 and 56(2), refund of illegally received amount of KRW 34,006,410, additional collection of the same amount, and 360 days (hereinafter “instant disposition”) between January 1, 2016 and December 25, 2016.
A. [The facts that there is no dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.