실업급여 지급제한, 반환명령 및 추가 징수처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: " May 1, 2015" in Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be " May 2, 2015"; "In the case of answer" in Part 4, Article 21 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be added to "(However, such circumstance alone does not make it impossible to prove that there is any justifiable reason not to cause any negligence on the duty of the plaintiff who did not report employment, and there is no evidence that the defendant's employee presented that it is not recognized as job-seeking activities to help the creative publication as alleged above; therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be stated, except for the addition of the judgment above, and such determination shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The decision on addition (the decision on the plaintiff's assertion of addition to the trial)
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was known to the effect that helping a newspaper company in a fee-free manner does not constitute “labor provision” under the duty to report, and even though the Defendant stated that a person in charge of unemployment benefits will help a newspaper company in a fee-free manner, the Plaintiff did not put a body in the “labor provision” column because he did not receive an instruction to the “labor provision” column for the application for the recognition of unemployment, and there was no fact that he or she did not belong to or she did not know about the provision of labor.
Therefore, even if the Plaintiff constitutes a person who received job-seeking benefits by unlawful means, the part concerning additional collection of the instant disposition is unreasonable.
B. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, even if considering the aforementioned circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, the additional collection disposition among the instant disposition cannot be deemed to be excessively harsh to the Plaintiff as it deviates from and abused discretion, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.
(1) Job-seeking benefits under the Employment Insurance Act shall be the insured.