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

(1) On March 30, 2014, the Plaintiff retired from Taesung Co., Ltd. on April 4, 2014, and applied for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits to the Defendant on April 4, 2014, and recognized eligibility for payment of KRW 210 days for fixed payment days, daily amount of job-seeking benefits 40,000. Accordingly, around that time, the Plaintiff received KRW 1,520,000 from the Defendant for job-seeking benefits for 38 days from April 11, 2014 to May 18, 2014.

The Plaintiff received early re-employment allowances of KRW 3,440,00 from the Defendant around June 17, 2015, on the grounds that he/she was employed in B from May 19, 2014 to October 13, 2014, and from October 14, 2014 to May 20, 2015 for 12 consecutive months or longer.

(2) However, around June 25, 2015, the representative D of C filed a report with the Defendant that “The Plaintiff, who entered May 1, 2014, issued a certificate of employment on May 19, 2014, allowing the Plaintiff to receive job-seeking benefits, and that “The date of loss was corrected on April 30, 2015, so that the Defendant would receive early reemployment benefits.”

(3) Accordingly, the Defendant attended and investigated the Plaintiff and D, and the two persons’ statements were extremely conflicting to each other to make an investigation request to the Suwon Police Station. The Suwon Police Station decided on May 1, 2014 on the Plaintiff’s B employment date, and on April 30, 2015, decided on April 30, 2015, and sent the Plaintiff to the prosecution as the prosecution’s opinion on the crime of fraud and the crime of violation of the Employment Insurance Act.

(4) Accordingly, on November 6, 2015, the Defendant suspended the payment of unemployment benefits to the Plaintiff based on Articles 61, 62, and 69-9 of the Employment Insurance Act, and ordered payment of unemployment benefits to the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 1,200,00 for job-seeking benefits without filing a report on May 19, 2014, the unemployment recognition date, despite having been employed on May 19, 2014 (from April 19, 2014 to May 18, 2014), and received the amount of KRW 3,440,00 for early re-employment allowances on May 19, 2015, and by receiving the amount of KRW 3,440,00 for false or other unlawful means.

(5) The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with an employment insurance examiner on January 27, 2016, but the employment insurance examiner dismissed the said request on March 3, 2016.

(6) On March 9, 2016, E, a child living together with the Plaintiff, received the certified copy of the decision to dismiss the said request for reexamination, which was registered by registered mail at the Plaintiff’s domicile. On June 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee on the ground that the request period for reexamination was exceeded, but the Employment Insurance Review Committee dismissed the said request for reexamination on the ground that the request period for reexamination was filed on July 6, 2016.

(7) On October 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

【Facts without dispute over the ground for recognition, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition, even though he did not receive unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means, should be revoked as unlawful.

(2) We examine ex officio the legitimacy of a lawsuit.

According to Articles 87, 92, 99, 102, and 104 of the Employment Insurance Act, a plaintiff may, if he/she has an objection to the disposition in this case, file a request for review with the Employment Insurance Review Committee within 90 days after he/she becomes aware of the disposition in this case. If he/she has an objection to such decision, he/she may file a request for review with the Employment Insurance Review Committee within 90 days after he/she becomes aware of the decision in this case. Any request for review and request for review filed after the lapse of the period of 90 days in

According to Articles 20, 18, and 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, a litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the relevant disposition, etc.: Provided, That where he/she has undergone a lawful administrative appeal, the litigation shall be instituted within 90 days from the

In this context, "the date when the party becomes aware of the disposition" means the date when the party becomes aware of the fact that the disposition was taken by notification, public notice, or any other means, and it does not mean the date when the party becomes aware of the fact that the disposition was taken by abstract means. However, if the party becomes aware of the fact that the document stating the disposition is served on the party's address by social norms, it can be presumed that the disposition was known unless there is any counter-proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu11535, Nov. 24, 1995). Such interpretation theory likewise applies to the case of "the date when the party becomes aware of the decision

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a request for review against the instant disposition, but was dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s living together received the certified copy of the decision to dismiss the said request for review, which was registered by registered mail at the Plaintiff’s domicile on March 9, 2016. Barring any special circumstance, it can be presumed that the Plaintiff was aware that the said decision was rejected at that time, and that the Plaintiff made a request for review to the Employment Insurance Review Committee on June 8, 2016 after the lapse of 90 days thereafter. Therefore, the said request for review is unlawful, and the instant lawsuit filed on March 10, 2016, which was served after the delivery of the certified copy of the said decision to dismiss the review, was unlawful, since the period for filing a lawsuit under the Administrative Litigation

(3) Even if it is not so, comprehensively taking account of the above evidence evidence as stated in Eul evidence No. 11, the plaintiff was indicted for committing a crime of fraud and the Employment Insurance Act and sentenced to a judgment of conviction of a fine of KRW 2.5 million on the ground that the plaintiff was paid job-seeking benefits of KRW 4,640,00 (=job-seeking benefits of KRW 1,200,000 + early re-employment allowances of KRW 3,440,00) by deceit or other unlawful means. The plaintiff's assertion that the judgment became final and conclusive (U District Court Decision 2016Da698, Sept. 22, 2016; Suwon District Court Decision 2016No6856, Jun. 16, 2017). Thus, it cannot be acknowledged that it was inconsistent with the administrative litigation of this case, unless there are special circumstances to deem it difficult to adopt the factual judgment of the above criminal judgment (the plaintiff's assertion that this case is without merit, pointing out other grounds for appeal 1992.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is dismissed.