Firstly, Mr. Lê Hà Vũ A and the Company had entered into several agreements related to the obligation to reimburse training expenses, as follows:

– Long-term Training Contract No. 180/HĐ-ĐT: The Company sent Mr. A to pursue a Master of Business Administration degree at University T, with the program running from August 1, 2020, to August 1, 2022, on weekends. During this time, the Company covered all tuition fees. Upon completing the program, Mr. A was required to work for the Company for a period three times the length of the training. Failure to fulfill this obligation would result in Mr. A being liable to reimburse 300% of the training costs, including tuition fees, monthly base salary, and insurance premiums.

– Short-term Training Contract No. 214/HĐ-ĐT: Mr. A was assigned to attend a hospital management course organized by Q JSC from August 16 to August 21, 2022, held online from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM. The Company paid a training fee of VND 2,500,000. Mr. A was obligated to work for the Company for five years after completion of the course. If this obligation was not fulfilled, he would be required to reimburse 300% of the training costs.

– Short-term Training Contract No. 74/HD-ĐT: Mr. A attended a quality management course for hospitals organized by Q JSC from April 19 to April 24, 2023, also held online from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM. The Company paid a training fee of VND 2,500,000. Mr. A was again obligated to work for the Company for five years post-training. Breach of this obligation would result in a 300% reimbursement liability.

Overall, the terms regarding the obligation to reimburse training costs are legally valid [1] (with the exception that the 300% reimbursement rate should be adjusted to align with the Labor Code 2019 (LC 2019) [2] and comply with the Civil Code 2015 (CC 2015), the LC 2019, and the Law on Vocational Education 2014 [3]. These agreements are binding upon both parties, including Mr. A’s obligation to reimburse the costs in the event he violates the post-training service period (unless there are exemption clauses in the contracts).

While Article 40 of the LC 2019 provides that employees must reimburse training costs if they illegally terminate their labor contract [4], it does not prohibit parties from agreeing on reimbursement even if the employee legally terminates the training contract. Article 7 of the LC 2019 affirms that labor relations shall be established through dialogue, negotiation, and mutual agreement on the basis of voluntariness, good faith, equality, cooperation, and respect for each other’s lawful rights and interests. At the time the training agreements were signed, both parties voluntarily agreed in good faith and in compliance with the principles of the law. These agreements do not violate Article 8 of the LC 2019, which lists prohibited acts in labor relations, and are in line with clause 2, Article 61 of the Law on Vocational Education 2014.

In this case, although the reimbursement amount agreed upon is relatively high, the company is only claiming a total of VND 161,894,958. According to Article 62 of the LC 2019, training costs include legitimate expenses supported by valid documentation such as teacher’s fees, study materials, school and class fees, practice equipment and supplies, other supporting expenses, and wages, as well as social, health, and unemployment insurance paid for the trainee during the training period. If the training is conducted overseas, the costs also include travel and living expenses.

Therefore, the burden of proof to justify the claim of VND 161,894,958 lies with Y LLC.

Secondly, regarding the exemption from civil liability for breach of obligations, Article 351 of the 2015 Civil Code provides the applicable legal basis (since the 2019 Labor Code does not address this matter, the provisions of the 2015 Civil Code shall apply [5]):

“Article 351. Civil Liability for Breach of Obligations
1. A party that has an obligation and breaches such obligation shall bear civil liability toward the party having the corresponding right.
A breach of obligation means the failure to perform the obligation on time, incomplete performance of the obligation, or performance that does not conform to the agreed content of the obligation.
2. In case the obligated party fails to properly perform the obligation due to a force majeure event, it shall not bear civil liability, unless otherwise agreed or prescribed by law.
3. The obligated party shall not bear civil liability if it can prove that the non-performance of the obligation was entirely due to the fault of the entitled party.”

According to the CC, a force majeure event must be objective, unforeseeable, and unavoidable despite all necessary and possible measures.

In this case, Mr. A was reportedly receiving treatment for spinal degeneration, yet the Company had reached out to support and encourage him to return to work. Given that the Company operates in the healthcare sector, it is unlikely they would retain an employee incapable of performing their job duties. Mr. A was appointed Deputy Head of the Administration Department on September 1, 2022—indicating trust in his capability.

Therefore, his condition is unlikely to constitute a force majeure event, and he does not qualify for exemption from civil liability under Article 351.

Thirdly, in judicial practice, Vietnamese courts have consistently upheld employers’ claims for reimbursement of training expenses. For example: Appellate Labor Judgment No. 23/2017/LĐ-PT dated September 29, 2017 by Đ. Province People’s Court [6], and Appellate Labor Judgment No. 03/2019/LĐ-PT dated March 28, 2019 by H. City People’s Court (between Mr. Dương Xuân T and Hospital T) [7]. These rulings confirm that courts recognize training reimbursements as legally valid and necessary to protect the rights of employers—who invest in professional development with the expectation of service commitment. This investment is only recovered if the employee fulfills the agreed service period. If the employee breaches that agreement, the incurred training cost becomes a loss to the employer and should be reimbursed accordingly. From the employee’s perspective, acquiring new professional skills enhances their employability and market value. If they choose to leave their position for better opportunities, reimbursement serves as a fair mechanism to balance the interests of both parties.
One of the fundamental principles of civil law is that individuals and legal entities must establish, perform, and terminate their civil rights and obligations in good faith and honesty. Such conduct must not infringe upon national or public interests, nor the lawful rights and interests of others.

The above represents the author’s personal viewpoint on training cost reimbursement. Feedback and commentary from readers are welcome.