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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits with the Defendant on the ground that he/she retired from employment on April 30 of the same year with the Korea Transit Co., Ltd., pursuant to Article 43 of the Employment Insurance Act, and received recognition of eligibility for benefits on

B. After that, pursuant to the former part of the main sentence of Article 44(2) of the Employment Insurance Act, a “report on re-employment” was made to the Defendant under the Plaintiff’s name. The Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits equivalent to KRW 7,231,630,00 from the Defendant pursuant to the latter part of the main sentence of Article 44(2) of the same Act.

A person shall be appointed.

C. However, at the request of the plaintiff who had been staying in the United States at that time, the report of reemployment Nos. 2 and 3 was made and submitted in the name of the plaintiff via the Internet with the plaintiff's authorized certificate (hereinafter referred to as "the report in this case," and hereinafter referred to as "ex post facto report" in total, among the reports Nos. 4 and 7). D. The defendant, on March 14, 2017, shall issue an order for the return of unemployment benefits to the Internet using the authorized certificate at the date designated by the head of the employment security office having jurisdiction over the place of application, to faithfully report whether the activities and income have occurred on the Internet, using the authorized certificate of employment security office. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20622, Dec. 12, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 20622, Feb. 2, 30, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 20637, Feb. 9, 2016>

E. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with an employment insurance examiner on May 2, 2017, but the request for review was dismissed on June 1, 2017. On September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but the request for reexamination was also dismissed on October 25, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

The Plaintiff had been seeking to be re-employed in good faith even during the period between the aforementioned table Nos. 2 and 3, for which the recognition of unemployment was granted upon the instant report. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s receipt of the job seeking benefits by the instant report constitutes a case where the Plaintiff received unemployment benefits by referring to “any false or other unlawful means” under Article 61(1) of the Employment Insurance Act.

2) Even if a violation of the principle of proportionality exists, considering that the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff of the fact that he was prohibited from reporting reemployment through the Internet, the instant disposition is in violation of the principle of proportionality because it was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff compared to the public interest to be achieved thereby.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the non-existence of grounds for disposition

According to Article 40(1)2 and 40(4), and Article 44(2) and (3) of the Employment Insurance Act, in order to receive unemployment benefits (job-seeking benefits), an insured worker who has retired from employment must actively endeavor to re-employment in the “unemployment condition despite his/her intent and ability to do so” (hereinafter referred to as “employment recognition date”) and report his/her efforts to re-employment at the date designated by the head of the Employment Security Office (hereinafter referred to as “employment recognition date”) and undergo the verification of unemployment (Procedural requirements). As to the above procedural requirements, Article 44(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that, in principle, an eligible beneficiary who intends to obtain the recognition of unemployment may, in principle, obtain the recognition of unemployment by attending the Employment Security Office at the date designated by the head of the Employment Security Office within the scope of one week from the date of unemployment declaration and reporting his/her efforts for re-employment at the Employment Security Office, and the proviso provides that “The method of recognition of the following unemployed is in accordance with the criteria prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor:

Article 65 subparag. 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27738, Dec. 30, 2016) provides that "a person recognized by the head of an employment security office to be able to report the activities of reemployment and the occurrence of income directly through the Internet as one of eligible recipients prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 44(2) subparag. 3 of the Employment Insurance Act, and Article 89(6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "a person who intends to obtain recognition of unemployment through the Internet pursuant to Article 65 subparag. 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act shall report his/her direct reemployment activities and the occurrence of income directly on the Internet by utilizing an authorized certificate on the date designated by

Meanwhile, Article 44(3) of the Employment Insurance Act provides, “Where an eligible recipient falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she may obtain recognition of unemployment by submitting a certificate stating the reasons why he/she could not attend the employment security office,” and provides that “Where the eligible recipient could not appear at the employment security office for seven consecutive days due to illness or injury (Article 1); where he/she could not appear at the employment security office due to interview with the job offerer through the job placement service of the employment security office (Article 2); where he/she could not appear at the employment security office for the purpose of undergoing vocational skills development training ordered by the head of the employment security office (Article 3); where he/she could not attend the employment security office for natural disasters or other unavoidable reasons (Article

In full view of the language, structure, form, and content of the above relevant statutes, it is clear that the beneficiary’s efforts to re-employment should be made by attending the Employment Security Office in principle. The legislative purport of the relevant statutes is to: (a) check the content of job-seeking activities, the intent and ability of the employment security office for reemployment, and prevent the demand and supply of unfair job-seeking benefits; and (b) induce the beneficiary to re-employment within the Republic of Korea if possible; and (c) accordingly, the beneficiary who seeks to report re-employment through the Internet ought to report re-employment by directly using an authorized certificate.

However, as seen above, the fact that the Plaintiff was staying in the U.S. at the time of the report of this case that caused the same student in Korea to file the report of this case in the name of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the fact that the Plaintiff received unemployment benefits according to the instant report constitutes a case where the Plaintiff received unemployment benefits by “a false or other unlawful means” under Article 61(1) of the Employment Insurance Act. The Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2) Determination on the assertion of violation of the principle of proportionality

A) Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement on public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the act of violation, which is the reason for the disposition, and the public interest to be achieved by the act of disposition, and all the relevant circumstances. In addition, even if the criteria for a punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance of the Ministry, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative agency’s internal administrative affairs rules, and it is not effective externally to the public or court, and whether such disposition is legitimate or not must be determined in accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant laws and regulations, not only the above criteria for disposition, but also it cannot be said that the pertinent disposition is legitimate merely because it conforms with the above criteria for disposition, but also does not conform with the Constitution

Unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that such a disposition is considerably unreasonable in light of the content and purport of the relevant statute, it should not be determined that the disposition deviates from the scope of discretion or abused discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6946, Sept. 20, 2007).

B) Examining the following circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 9 and 10 as a whole, it is difficult to view the instant disposition as being excessively harsh to the Plaintiff compared to the public interest intended to achieve by itself. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① On May 14, 2015, before submitting an application for eligibility for job-seeking benefits, the Plaintiff viewed video lectures at the Defendant’s request. The contents of the lectures include the fact that a person who seeks to report reemployment through the Internet should report by using an authorized certificate, as in the case of having attended the Employment Security Office directly.

② Even if the Plaintiff was designated as a recipient of Internet unemployment benefits even in the employment insurance certificate received from the Defendant, the phrase “I must prepare and transmit an application for recognition of unemployment with his/her authorized certificate from the employment insurance website.”

③ It is difficult to find reasonable grounds to recognize that the disposition standards prescribed in Articles 104 and 105 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act do not conform with the Constitution or Acts and subordinate statutes by itself, or that the disposition in this case is considerably unreasonable in light of the substance of the offense and the content and purport of the relevant statutes.

() The instant disposition is more favorable to the Plaintiff than that stipulated under the above Enforcement Rule. That is, according to Article 104 Subparag. 1 of the above Enforcement Rule, the Plaintiff is ordered to order the full amount of job-seeking benefits (7,231,630 won) that the Plaintiff received according to the instant report and the subsequent report, and the Defendant issued an order only to return the job-seeking benefits (6,910,230 won) that the Plaintiff received according to the instant report and the subsequent report. Furthermore, according to Article 105 of the above Enforcement Rule, the Plaintiff is ordered to additionally collect the total amount of job-seeking benefits paid by the Plaintiff according to the instant report and the instant report, KRW 2,249,840. The Defendant additionally

⑤ The Plaintiff did not voluntarily notify the Defendant that his birth had reported his efforts to re-employment, and the Defendant became aware of the aforementioned facts only during the course of the investigation in accordance with the notice by the Board of Audit and Inspection.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.