A. On May 23, 2013, upon filing an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance with the Defendant, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 4,269,010 for job-seeking benefits (122 days) from May 30, 2013 to October 26, 2013 upon obtaining recognition of eligibility for benefits of KRW 34,992 as the date of job-seeking benefits.

B. On August 29, 2013, at the time of the application for the fourth unemployment recognition (from August 2, 2013 to August 29, 2013, the period subject to the unemployment recognition), the Plaintiff reported that he/she engaged in job-seeking activities on August 9, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Korea Maritime Research Institute”) and “B” August 26, 2013. Accordingly, the Defendant paid KRW 979,70 on August 29, 2013 to the Plaintiff, while designating the fifth unemployment recognition period as from August 30, 2013 to September 26, 2013, notified the Plaintiff that the date and number of job-seeking activities should be reported once a week. < Amended by Act No. 11904, Aug. 29, 2013>

D. During the fifth period subject to the recognition of unemployment (from August 30, 2013 to September 26, 2013), the Plaintiff reported that he/she engaged in job-seeking activities on September 3, 2013, such as the Seoul Vocational Professional School, September 11, 2013, the Maritime Driving Institute, September 20, 2013, the IMW Services, and September 24, 2013.

E. As to this, the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of unemployment benefits on September 26, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not actively engage in job-seeking activities on the ground that the Plaintiff had received the unemployment recognition on August 29, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for review seeking revocation of the original disposition with an employment insurance examiner, but was dismissed on January 9, 2014. On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee on March 10, 2014, but was dismissed on April 23, 2014. 【Grounds for recognition】 without dispute, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1, 1, 1 through 9 (including all of the additional numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff provided duplicate support to the Maritime Research Institute on August 29, 2013 as of September 11, 2013, but provided job-seeking activities with actual intent to find employment. As such, the instant disposition that deemed that the Plaintiff did not actively engage in re-employment in the same workplace is unlawful, and thus, should be revoked.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. Article 63(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 12323, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter “Act”) provides for the purpose of preventing unemployment, promoting employment, and developing and improving the vocational ability of workers through the implementation of employment insurance, strengthening the State’s vocational guidance and job placement functions, and facilitating workers’ livelihood stability and job-seeking activities by providing necessary benefits when they are unemployed (Article 1). Article 63(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24682, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that an eligible recipient shall be present at the Employment Security Office having jurisdiction over the place of application for unemployment recognition, and shall not repeatedly state his/her eligibility to re-employment activities from the date following the unemployment recognition date to the date of unemployment recognition, and shall not be deemed to have been delegated by the Ministry of Employment and Labor for re-employment activities under Article 54(1)1 of the former Enforcement Rule.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the health team set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4 and the fact-finding results of this court's Maritime Research Institute, the plaintiff was working for the Korean Air Service Center from October 5, 1978 to June 30, 1993 as D in Seoul Special Metropolitan City from July 1, 2003 to December 12, 2012; the plaintiff was working for the e-learning research institute from August 9, 2013; the e-learning research institute from August 26, 2013; the Seoul Specialized School from September 3, 2013; the e-learning Development Institute from September 201, 2013 to September 3, 2013; the e-learning Development Institute from September 24, 2013 to 3, 2013 (the e-learning Development Institute from September 24, 2013).

C. The reasons behind the aforementioned facts are that a beneficiary who conducts a false and formal job-seeking job search repeatedly only at the same workplace are prevented from unfairly receiving unemployment benefits. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s career, it seems difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff wishes to work at a piracy driving school for 20 years during the aviation of the Republic of Korea, Seoul Special Metropolitan City D for 10 years, and that it would be difficult for the Plaintiff to readily conclude that he/she wishes to work at a piracy driving school. ② On August 9, 2013 and September 11, 2013, the Plaintiff conducted a job-seeking job on the different job-seeking notice for each of the two different job-seeking driving schools, and on the other, on August 26, 2013 and September 26, 2013, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff did not have the Plaintiff’s ability to work on the grounds that the Plaintiff continued to engage in the job-seeking job-seeking work on September 20, 2013.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

Judges Kim Jae-young

Judges Kim Gi-tae

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.