A. On October 12, 2012, the Plaintiff retired from the same building at the same construction office of a general construction company, and on November 13, 2012, upon applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits to the Defendant, the Plaintiff recognized eligibility of KRW 240 days for the fixed benefit payment and KRW 40,000 for the daily benefit of job-seeking benefits, and received KRW 7,040,000 in total from November 20 to May 14, 2013 as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On October 2, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition ordering the Plaintiff to pay unemployment benefits on May 10, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff was employed by Company B (hereinafter “instant company”) during the benefit period without filing a report on unemployment benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act and Articles 104 and 105 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and to return the amount of unemployment benefits received and to pay the additional amount of the job-seeking benefits received (i.e., the total amount of KRW 1,320,000 (=the additional amount of KRW 200,000 + the additional amount of KRW 200,000 due to the illegal receipt + the amount of KRW 920,000 due to the one-time return).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed with the instant company to receive the membership system in the form of re-based service by telephone, but did not know that the employment was finalized until the Plaintiff was served with the certificate of employment on May 23, 2013. Thus, the Plaintiff reported on May 14, 2013 that there was no provision of employment and employment at the time of filing an application for unemployment recognition, and that there was no intention to receive unemployment benefits. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 40(1)2 of the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “If a person has provided labor during a period subject to verification of unemployment, he/she shall file an application for verification of unemployment with the head of an employment security office, stating such fact in the first written application for verification of unemployment, after the person has provided labor.” Article 47(1) of the Act and Article 69(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that an eligible recipient shall file a report with the head of an employment security office, stating such fact.

Meanwhile, Articles 61(1) and 62(1) of the Act provide that a person who has received, or attempted to receive, unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means may, without paying, all or part of the job-seeking benefits from the date on which he/she received, or attempted to receive, such unemployment benefits, may also order the person to return all or part of the paid job-seeking benefits, and in addition, a person may collect an amount equivalent to

"False or other unlawful means" under Article 61 (1) of the Act refers to any unlawful act committed by a person who is not eligible for unemployment benefits in general by pretending eligibility for benefits or concealing employment facts or income generated (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7494, Sept. 23, 2003); Article 61 (2) of the Act; Article 80 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act; and Article 104 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, the act of receiving unemployment benefits without fulfilling the obligation to report the above provision of labor constitutes "the act of receiving unemployment benefits by fraudulent or other unlawful means" under the above paragraph (1); Provided, That if the above unlawful act is committed once, the job-seeking benefits shall not be paid as a whole from the date of receiving the benefits, but only for the period subject to unemployment recognition, and the return of job-seeking benefits shall also be ordered to return job-seeking benefits paid for the period subject to unemployment recognition.

2) Comprehensively taking into account the following facts acknowledged by the purport of the statement and the entire arguments as to the instant case, the Plaintiff entered the instant company as of May 10, 2013. From May 9, 2013 to October, 2013, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff consulted with the instant company about the specific working conditions and received the notice of employment from the instant company, and applied for the seventh unemployment recognition and received job-seeking benefits for the period subject to the seventh unemployment recognition, without notifying the Defendant of employment on May 14, 2013, even though he had already known the employment of the instant company around the said time.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful on the same premise.

A) Around May 9, 2013 to October, 2010, the Plaintiff exchanged with the director C of the instant company, and agreed on working conditions, such as the Plaintiff’s class, workplace, work in charge, work period, and annual salary. The instant company stated that the Plaintiff was employed during the said monetary call and that May 10, 2013 was the Plaintiff’s employee.

B) The Plaintiff complies with the employment contract and the working conditions of the instant company with the instant company

The date of preparation was stated on May 10, 2013, and later revised on May 28, 2013.

C) On May 10, 2013, the instant company, including the Plaintiff, had a supervisor’s change due to five job placements, and on which May 10, 2013, the Korea Construction Consulting Engineers Association reported the change of the registered matters of the supervising company. Accordingly, on May 20, 2013, the Korea Construction Consulting Engineers Association (including the Plaintiff) processed the said five change as a supervisor of the instant company. The current status of the change of the supervisors of the instant company prepared by the Korea Construction Consulting Engineers Association and the Plaintiff’s job placement date in the column of the supervision information inquiry on the website of the Korea Construction Consulting Engineers Association is written on May 10, 2013.

D) On May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for issuance of a certificate of employment to the instant company by himself/herself and received it by mail on May 23, 2013, and the Plaintiff’s membership date on the certificate of employment is written on May 10, 2013.

E) On May 28, 2013, the instant company paid KRW 685,777, which is equivalent to the Plaintiff’s salary from May 10, 2013. On the employment insurance network of the Plaintiff, the acquisition date of the Plaintiff’s employment insurance became May 10, 2013.

F) On May 14, 2013, the seventh unemployment recognition date, the Plaintiff reported that “from April 17, 2013 to May 14, 2013, the period for unemployment recognition was during which job-seeking activities were conducted, but there was no provision of labor and employment.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-young

Judges Domination

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.