2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On May 27, 2010, the Plaintiff served as the faculty member of B University on March 29, 2010 and applied for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits to the Defendant on May 27, 2010. From June 3, 2010 to December 29, 2010, the Plaintiff received the total amount of job-seeking benefits amounting to KRW 6,07,920 on nine occasions from the Defendant (i.e., job-seeking benefits amounting to KRW 28,942.5 x 210 x less than KRW).

B. On July 1, 2011, the Defendant: (a) pursuant to Articles 61 and 62 of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 10719, May 14, 201; hereinafter “former Act”), Articles 104 and 105 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 32, Sept. 16, 201; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act”), on the ground that the Plaintiff was appointed as an internal director from September 28, 2010 to December 29, 201; and (b) provided labor to the Defendant; and (c) received unemployment benefits unlawfully without reporting the fact.

The Plaintiff issued an order to return and additionally collect KRW 6,106,750 in total, including the amount of job-seeking benefits paid during the pertinent period, the amount additionally collected, and the amount equivalent thereto, from September 3, 2010 to September 27, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). On July 8, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Employment Insurance Examiner seeking cancellation of the instant disposition, but was dismissed on October 27, 201, and filed a petition for further review with the Employment Insurance Review Committee on January 13, 2012, but was dismissed on February 13, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 11, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 12, 13, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

The Plaintiff registered as a director of the non-party company on September 28, 2010, but served for the non-party company from January 1, 2011, and did not receive any remuneration from the non-party company during the period of job-seeking benefits. Thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff was employed for the non-party company from September 28, 2010 is unlawful.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Facts of recognition;

A. The non-party company was recognized as a vocational ability development training establishment from the Defendant, which is a company providing education, training, and research services. After the resignation of the director D (Plaintiff’s wife), the Plaintiff was registered as the sole in-house director on September 28, 2010. On October 7, 2010, the non-party company filed an application to change the representative of the non-party company, which is a vocational ability development training establishment, from D to the Daegu Employment Center, to the Plaintiff, and obtained modified designation on October 22, 2010.

B. On November 11, 2010, the Plaintiff received KRW 60,116,210 in total by filing a claim for training expenses and training allowances on behalf of Nonparty Company with the Daegu Employment Center affiliated with the Defendant, including claiming training expenses and training allowances for the process of manufacturing computerized applied machinery, etc. by no later than nine times until January 4, 201. On November 25, 2010, the Plaintiff attended meetings of training institutions held at the Daegu Employment Center on behalf of Nonparty Company on behalf of Nonparty Company.

C. The Plaintiff did not receive benefits from the Nonparty Company during the benefit period. From September 30, 2010 to December 12, 29, the Plaintiff submitted an application for unemployment recognition to the Defendant at least five times, and did not report the fact that he/she was appointed as an internal director of the Nonparty Company. The Plaintiff was recorded in the business registration certificate of the Nonparty Company as the representative of the Nonparty Company only on December 30, 2010 on the day following the end of the benefit period for job-seeking benefits.

[Ground of Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 3 through 9, evidence 12-3 through 8, evidence 14-1 through 6, evidence 19 through 21, Eul evidence 1 through 11-2, evidence 18 through 21, Eul's order to submit tax information to the head of the same Daegu District Tax Office, the result of the order to submit tax information to the head of the same Daegu District Tax Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

5. Determination

A. Pursuant to Article 47(1) of the former Act and Article 69(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23139, Sep. 15, 2011; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”), an eligible recipient, when having provided labor during the period subject to verification of unemployment, shall file an application for verification of unemployment with the head of an employment security office stating the fact thereof after the date of provision of labor. Under Article 61(1) of the former Act, a person who has received, or attempted to receive, unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means shall not be paid job-seeking benefits. Under Article 61(2) of the former Act, the act of receiving unemployment benefits without fulfilling his/her duty to report under Article 47(1) of the former Act constitutes “an act of receiving unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means.” In such cases, the head of an employment security office may order a refund of all or part of the job-seeking benefits already paid under Article 62(1) of the former Enforcement Rule, and may additionally collect the amount of job-seeking benefits by fraud.

Meanwhile, Article 47(1) of the former Act and Article 92 of the former Enforcement Rule of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act delegated by Article 69(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the former Act recognize eligibility for job-seeking benefits as eligible for job-seeking benefits, where a worker provides his/her labor for at least 60 hours (including where the prescribed working hours per week are at least 15 hours) for a month (Article 1); where a worker provides his/her labor for a daily worker under subparagraph 6 of Article 2 of the former Act (Article 3); (Article 47(1) of the former Act and Article 69(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the former Act (Article 47 of the former Act); (Article 47(1) of the former Act and Article 69(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the former Enforcement Rule of the former Act; (Article 2(3) of the former Act (Article 47(4)); (5) of the former Act,

( subparagraph 7) means the case, etc.

B. On the other hand, even if the plaintiff did not receive the benefits from the non-party company during the period of receiving job-seeking benefits, the plaintiff represents the non-party company as the only internal director of the non-party company and applies mutatis mutandis the provision on delegation of the Civil Act in relation to the non-party company (Article 382 (2) of the Commercial Act). Thus, the plaintiff is obliged to perform duties delegated by the non-party company with due care as a good manager (Article 681 of the Civil Act). As seen earlier, the plaintiff has performed external activities as a real representative, not the representative of the non-party company during the period of receiving job-seeking benefits, and the plaintiff is registered as a business registration representative of the non-party company after the expiration of the period of job-seeking benefits. In light of the fact that the plaintiff is registered as a business registration representative of the non-party company after the completion of the period of job-seeking benefits, it constitutes "where it is deemed difficult for the plaintiff to ordinarily find other businesses by participating in the non-party company's business during the period of receiving job-seeking benefits."

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-nam

Judges Kim Gin-han

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.