실업급여 지급제한,반환명령 결정 처분 취소 청구
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 6, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits by applying for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits that “the Plaintiff retired from office in Company B on December 31, 2015; and (b) received job-seeking benefits totaling KRW 3,173,900 upon receiving unemployment recognition from the Defendant through a report of re-employment efforts through a total of four occasions.
B. However, the Plaintiff’s second re-employment report on February 17, 2016 (hereinafter “instant report”) was in stay in Japan from February 16, 2016 to February 18, 2016, and the Plaintiff’s punishment in the Republic of Korea was written and submitted via the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate via the Internet upon the Plaintiff’s request.
C. On May 3, 2016, the Defendant confirmed the foregoing facts and issued an order to restrict and return KRW 1,124,920 to the Plaintiff’s job-seeking benefits received upon the instant report pursuant to Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On May 24, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and dismissed a request for examination to an employment insurance examiner on May 24, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee on June 30, 2016, but was likewise dismissed on May 9, 2018. The written decision was served on the Plaintiff on May 28, 2018.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, 10, 14, 18, Eul's 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not provide the plaintiff with education for "the report of reemployment on the Internet through his/her agent in a situation where he/she stays abroad constitutes "the case where he/she received unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means," and that he/she can change the schedule for the report of reemployment in extenuating circumstances," and such education is also conducted before the plaintiff pointed out such problems.