실업급여지급제한,반환명령및추가징수결정취소
1. The Defendant’s decision to additionally collect additional collection against the Plaintiff on July 27, 2018 is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's remainder.
1. Summary of disposition;
A. On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance with the Defendant on the ground that “the Plaintiff retired from office on May 31, 2017 due to the reduction of the number of employees required for management in Company B; and (b) thereby, upon recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits of KRW 150 days for wage and KRW 50,000 for job-seeking benefits from the Defendant, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 6,00,000 for job-seeking benefits from June 22, 2017 to October 19, 2017.
B. However, on July 27, 2018, the Defendant applied for job-seeking benefits as above to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Plaintiff was employed as the head of the headquarters of a stock company Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) from June 1, 2017 to July 31, 2017, the Defendant received job-seeking benefits during the said period by unlawful means, following the training period from September 1, 2017 to October 20, 2017 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits during the said period” (hereinafter “instant disposition”), the payment restriction of unemployment benefits, the order for return of KRW 6,00,000,000, and additional collection of KRW 6,000,000.”
C. On August 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a request for an examination with an employment insurance examiner against its objection, but the Plaintiff was rendered a final decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request on November 13, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was only paid a corporate card for the purpose of compensating for actual expenses, such as transportation expenses, within the limit of KRW 1,000,000 per month, without fixing the amount of benefits due to the pro rata relationship with the representative when Nonparty (a) works for the company.
The Plaintiff was paid KRW 1,00,000,000 on September 30, 2017, and KRW 2,000,000 on October 25, 2017 from Nonparty Company (b), but it was received in the form of temporary payment in an uncertain situation.
Ultimately, the defendant has worked in each of the above companies under the substantial subordinate relationship.