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

(a) Demand and supply of unemployment benefits;

(1) On November 30, 2010, when the Plaintiff retired from employment in B Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility for unemployment benefits to the Defendant on December 21, 2010.

(2) After recognizing the Plaintiff’s eligibility for unemployment benefits (the fixed benefit payment days 210 days, the benefit period 20 days from December 1, 201, July 25, 201, the daily amount of job-seeking benefits 29,592), the Defendant paid KRW 6,214,270 to the Plaintiff nine times in total from December 28, 201 to July 25, 201.

(b) Order to investigate and return violations;

(1) As a result of the investigation of the Plaintiff’s illegal receipt of unemployment benefits, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff directly and indirectly operated F from March 10, 2011, which was the starting date of lease, on the ground that the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s mobile phone number in the lease agreement and the F signboard, which is the signboard of the shop, although the lessee of the D market 51, located in Ansan-si, becomes E, and the Plaintiff’s application for mediation of No. 2012 money57, which was submitted to the Suwon District Court for the reason that the Plaintiff suffered violence from G, and that the Plaintiff had operated F.

(2) On March 5, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition to return KRW 4,527,540 for total 153 days from February 23, 2011 to July 25, 201, as prescribed in Articles 44, 61, and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act, and additionally collect KRW 4,083,690, which is equivalent to the benefits from March 10, 201 to July 25, 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 to 3, 14 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed after the lapse of the time limit for filing the lawsuit.

In full view of Articles 18(1) and 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 27(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act, when a person selects the method of filing a revocation suit immediately against a disposition with the knowledge of the existence of an administrative disposition, he/she shall file a revocation suit within 90 days from the date he/she becomes aware of such disposition, and when he/she selects the method of filing an administrative appeal, he/she shall file a revocation suit within 90 days from the date he/she becomes aware of such disposition, and file a revocation suit within 90 days from the date he/she is served with a written adjudication on the administrative appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 90 days from the date he/she becomes aware of such disposition). Therefore, where a revocation suit is not filed without filing an administrative appeal within 90 days from the date he/she becomes aware of such disposition, the subsequent revocation suit shall be deemed to have been filed, and it shall not be deemed that the period of filing a revocation suit has re-compliance with the original disposition.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff received the instant disposition on March 6, 2012, and Article 87(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that a request for review shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the Plaintiff becomes aware of the disposition, but the Plaintiff filed a request for review with an employment insurance examiner on September 11, 2012, and the employment insurance examiner rendered a decision dismissing the request for review on October 10, 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request for review was unlawful, and thus, the Plaintiff’s request for review was dismissed on December 10, 2012, but the request for review was rejected on January 7, 2013, and that the request for review was made on January 15, 2013, and thus, the Plaintiff received the instant disposition within 30 days from the date on which the request for review was made. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not have been aware that the instant disposition was unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Freeboard of Justice Maintenance

Judges, Assistants