2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. A. Around November 2007, the Plaintiff acquired a certified public labor attorney’s license and retired from office on June 30, 2009, and thereafter, on July 9, 2009, filed an application for unemployment benefits with the Seoul Meritorious Employment Support Center and received total of KRW 1,880,000 for job-seeking benefits during the period subject to verification of unemployment from July 16, 2009 to August 31, 2009, and KRW 2,740,000 for early re-employment allowances, including KRW 860,000 for early re-employment allowances. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was employed from July 25, 2009 to August 31, 2009, while working for the C Workers’ Labor Standards Act during the period subject to verification of unemployment to receive KRW 3,524,60,000 for total amount of job-seeking benefits from July 25, 2009 to August 31, 2009.

B. On December 15, 2009, the Defendant, in violation of Article 47(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, received money in excess of KRW 40,000 per day of the Plaintiff’s daily amount of job-seeking benefits and did not report such fact to the head of the Employment Security Office, even though the Plaintiff provided labor to the C labor law firm within the period subject to unemployment recognition. Such an act was against the duty to maintain dignity under Article 12(1) of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act, and imposed one year suspension of qualification for the Plaintiff under Article 20(1)5 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Meanwhile, on March 19, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4 million in total, such as the amount unlawfully supplied to the Seoul Local Labor Affairs Office on March 19, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 to 7 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Absence of grounds for disciplinary action

The duty to maintain dignity under Article 12(1) of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act is based on the premise that a certified public labor attorney performs his/her duties as a certified public labor attorney, and it shall not be inferred or expanded to the private sector of privacy. The Plaintiff’s act of not reporting the provision of labor within the period subject to recognition of unemployment does not constitute a violation of the duty to maintain dignity under the said provision, since the Plaintiff’s act of not reporting

(2) A deviation from or abuse of the disciplinary authority;

In light of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the representative D, a certified public labor attorney who was known to the general public, was unable to perform his duties due to an unforeseen traffic accident, the Plaintiff received a request for assistance from the Plaintiff, that was to help the Plaintiff to perform his duties in response to the request, that was to reflect the mistakes and to reimburse the amount of illegal receipt, etc., the instant disposition was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff compared to the degree of the act of misconduct, and thus, deviates from or abused the scope of the disciplinary discretion.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether grounds for disciplinary action exist

Article 12(1) of the Certified Tax Accountant Act provides that "A certified tax accountant shall perform his/her duties in good faith and maintain dignity," while Article 12(1) of the Certified Tax Accountant Act provides that "A certified tax accountant shall maintain the dignity of "a certified public labor attorney" and perform his/her duties in good faith and sincerity. In light of such provision, it is reasonable to regard the duty to maintain dignity under the Certified Tax Consultant Act as a "a certified public labor attorney" as an ambiguous concept in terms of whether he/she is related to the performance of duties as a certified public labor attorney. As seen earlier, in violation of Article 47(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, etc., the Plaintiff did not report such fact to the head of the Employment Security Office after receiving money exceeding 40,000 won per day during the period subject to the recognition of unemployment, in violation of Article 47(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, and the Plaintiff's act constitutes a ground for disciplinary action stipulated in Article 20(1)5 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act.

(2) Whether the disciplinary discretion is exceeded or abused

Although the plaintiff's violation of the duty to maintain dignity as above is recognized, the plaintiff did not apply for unemployment benefits payment after he was employed regularly in C labor law firm before the violation of the Employment Insurance Act was discovered, in light of the fact that the plaintiff had no record of being subject to disciplinary action while working as a certified labor affairs consultant before the case, and returned the amount of illegal receipt, etc. related to this case, and other circumstances and degree of the violation, it seems that the plaintiff's disadvantage suffered compared to the public interest to be achieved by the disposition of this case, and that the suspension of qualification for a short period of time or other types of disciplinary action (administrative fine or reprimand, etc.) can achieve the public interest purpose (the defendant did not separately prepare the criteria for disciplinary action according to the type and degree of the act of misconduct, and submitted the data related to disciplinary action as reference materials after the closing of argument, but it did not find that the disciplinary action of this case was a violation of the same level as the disposition of this case due to a reason similar to the disciplinary action of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion that the disciplinary action of this case is unfair is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

decoration of Judge Merit;

Judges Kim Jae-soo

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.