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

A. On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits to the Defendant on the ground that he/she retired at C Child Care Center on August 30, 2015, recognized eligibility for benefits of KRW 120 days, KRW 30,132 of the fixed benefit payment days, and KRW 1,717,510 was paid on three occasions for 57 days from September 14, 2015 to November 9, 2015.

B. Upon applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance, the Plaintiff reported the final place of business as “C childcare center”, “the date of departure from employment”, and “unemployment” in the column for verification of current employment status. On September 21, 2015, upon applying for recognition of unemployment, on September 21, 2015, the Plaintiff reported the application for recognition of unemployment (the period subject to recognition of unemployment: the period subject to recognition of unemployment: from September 14, 2015 to September 21, 2015) to “no” in the column for confirmation of employment details.

C. The Defendant received job-seeking benefits on June 3, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits unlawfully even though he/she failed to meet the requirements for receiving old house benefits, since the Plaintiff was working at D (hereinafter “instant establishment”) from the Hadman on January 3, 2015 to September 19, 2015, the Defendant issued an order to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits, to return job-seeking benefits amounting to KRW 1,717,510, and to additionally collect the same amount as the same disposition, and “the instant disposition” refers to the instant disposition.

D) The Plaintiff filed a petition for review with an employment insurance examiner on August 16, 2016, which was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, but was dismissed on August 16, 2016. The Plaintiff again filed a petition for review with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but was dismissed on October 19, 2016. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in subparagraphs A through 3, B-1 through 15, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Until September 5, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant establishment was part-time at the instant establishment until September 5, 2015, and that on September 7, 2015, at the time of applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance on the morning, the Plaintiff did not part-time at the time of applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance on the A.M., and the head of the instant establishment did not seek a person, and the Plaintiff was her part-time.