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

A. The Plaintiff filed an application for the recognition of unemployment with the Defendant on January 26, 2010, stating the period subject to the recognition of unemployment from December 30, 2009 to January 26, 2010, and received KRW 1,052,30 of unemployment benefits for the said period. On February 23, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for the recognition of unemployment with the employment insurance recognition, stating the period subject to the recognition of unemployment, from January 27, 2010 to February 23, 2010, and received KRW 939,560 of unemployment benefits for the said period.

B. However, around April 2, 2010, the Defendant: (a) reported the insured status of the Plaintiff on February 24, 2010; (b) confirmed that the Plaintiff was employed on January 12, 2010 on the part of the Plaintiff through the computer network; and (c) confirmed that the Plaintiff was employed on January 12, 2010. Accordingly, on April 29, 2010, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff, who was employed from January 12, 2010 and provided labor on the part of the Plaintiff, was falsely reported to the Defendant and received unemployment benefits; and (d) confirmed that the Defendant received unemployment benefits from the Plaintiff on April 29, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of the evidence of Nos. 1 through 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that, as he/she was temporarily admitted to B on January 12, 2010 and acquired qualification on February 24, 2010, he/she did not receive unemployment benefits in an unlawful manner because he/she cannot be deemed as being subject to reporting during the said period of temporary employment.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Article 62 (1) of the Employment Insurance Act, the head of an employment security office may order a person who has received job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means to fully or partially return the total amount of job-seeking benefits received. In addition, the amount equivalent to or less than the amount of job-seeking benefits received by fraud or other improper means may be collected according to the criteria set by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor. In light of Article 61 of the same Act, etc., the beneficiary’s obligation to report labor provided to the head of the employment security office during the period subject to unemployment recognition is one of the types of fraudulent or other improper means.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff applied for the recognition of unemployment with the aforementioned date and time from January 12, 2010 to February 23, 2010 as the period subject to the recognition of unemployment, and received unemployment benefits after receiving the recognition of unemployment by stating that there was no labor fact during the said period. As such, it constitutes a person who received unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means. As the Plaintiff’s assertion, it cannot be deemed that the work subject to the report under Article 47(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is limited to the work after the date of reporting the acquisition of insured status.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that he did not receive unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means is without merit, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the instant disposition was unlawful, and the instant disposition is lawful.

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.

Judge Lee Jin-hun

Judges Kim Gin-dong