The cancellation of a disposition.

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

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, and 10:

A. On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff served as a teacher ( professor) belonging to the B University and retired on August 31, 2012, and around that time, the Plaintiff was commissioned as a part-time lecturer of the B University in February 2012 and was in charge of “C”.

B. On December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted an application for recognition of eligibility for benefits under the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant application”) to the Defendant on January 7, 2012, after completing the sexual treatment for the students in the above veterinary industry. The Plaintiff indicated “V” as “V” in the “unemployment status” as “the name of the instant application,” and “the date of the final departure from employment” as “B University Industry Cooperation Foundation,” and “the date of the final departure from employment” as “ August 31, 2012.” The Plaintiff obtained from the Defendant the recognition of eligibility for benefits of KRW 120,400,000 as the prescribed number of days of benefits, one day’s job-seeking benefits, from January 14, 2013 to February 18, 2013.

D. On June 17, 2013, the Defendant issued an order to restrict the payment of job-seeking benefits, to return job-seeking benefits of 1440,000 won received, and to additionally collect the same amount on the ground that “the Plaintiff was employed as a part-time lecturer at the pertinent university at the time of the submission of the instant application, and thus, did not meet the eligibility for job-seeking benefits, even though it was falsely reported as an unemployment status,” on the ground that the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits (hereinafter

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the term of appointment of a part-time lecturer of the second semester of 2012 against the Plaintiff was expired on December 12, 2012, the term of appointment as a part-time lecturer of the Plaintiff was terminated, the Plaintiff was unemployed at the time of submission of the instant application. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not receive job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means.

(2) The Plaintiff did not know that the appointment period of a part-time lecturer of the second semester of 2012 was terminated on February 28, 2013. In addition, prior to the preparation of the instant application, the Plaintiff asked D, a part-time lecturer of the Defendant, to be in charge of the Plaintiff, on August 31, 2012, who served as a part-time lecturer, but did not have been covered by the 4th unit insurance, and completed his lectures as a part-time lecturer. The Plaintiff asked D, at any time, at the time, whether the “final date of departure from the place of business” was written in the application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance, and then D, at the time after making a computerized inquiry as to the Plaintiff’s report on the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s eligibility for employment insurance, the final date of correspondence was written on August 31, 2012. The Plaintiff merely prepared and submitted the instant application for recognition of eligibility for benefits to the Plaintiff, and did not intentionally make a false report thereon.

(3) On March 18, 2013 and March 18, 2013, prior to the investigation commencement date, the Plaintiff made a voluntary report to E and F, who is an employee of the Defendant, on the grounds that the Plaintiff had prepared the instant application in accordance with D’s erroneous guidance. As such, the Plaintiff constitutes a case where the Plaintiff made a voluntary report stipulated as a ground for voluntary exemption from additional collection under Article 105(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act. However, given that the Defendant issued an additional collection to the Plaintiff without considering such circumstances, the disposition for additional collection in the instant case is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. The judgment of this Court

(1) Whether job-seeking benefits have been received by fraud or other improper means;

(A) First, we examine when and when the expiration date of the appointment period of part-time instructors of the second semester 2012 for the Plaintiff.

Since a labor contract is established with the acceptance of an offer in accordance with an employment contract, the content of the contract should be determined by individual negotiations. However, as a matter of principle, a company that employs a large number of workers today usually regulates employment conditions, etc. which form the contents of a labor contract by setting out the collective agreement and the rules of employment in a standardized and collective manner rather than by stipulating daily terms and conditions with individual workers, a labor relationship is established between an employee who has entered into a labor contract and an employer as prescribed by the rules of employment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da53496, Jan. 26, 199).

According to the overall purport of the statement and arguments on this case, the personnel management rules, including B University teachers, provide that "the purpose of this regulation is to establish the standards and procedures for personnel management concerning B University teachers, etc. (Article 1), and that "hours shall be the unit of a semester (Article 79)." Article 29 (2) 2 of the school regulations of B University provides that "The second semester shall be from September 1 until the end of February of the following year." Article 29 (2) 2 of the school regulations of B University provides that "The second semester shall be from August 27, 2012 to February 28, 2013, the term of the employment contract for the faculty members of B University shall be from August 27, 2012 to February 28, 2013, and the Plaintiff shall keep the contract for appointment of part-time lecturers under the name of the president of B University to the Plaintiff on September 9, 2012, and then, may be found to be e-mail by the Plaintiff on the same date.

According to the above facts, the personnel management rules, such as the faculty members of B University, are set forth in the rules of employment on working conditions, including the rules of service for workers at a workplace (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu14132, Nov. 27, 1998). Thus, even if the Plaintiff did not enter into a contract for appointment of a part-time lecturer at B University during the second-time period of February 28, 2013, the above rules of employment, as stipulated in Article 79 of the above rules of employment, was established, even if the term of the employment contract was until February 28, 2013.

(B) “False or other unlawful means” under Article 62(1) of the Employment Insurance Act refers to any unlawful act committed by a person ineligible for benefits who pretends to receive benefits or conceals the fact of employment or the occurrence of income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7494, Sept. 23, 2003). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff stated as a part-time lecturer of B University as the part-time lecturer of B University at January 7, 2013, which was the date of application of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s failure to receive job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means as stipulated in Article 62(1) of the Employment Insurance Act. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is unacceptable.

(2) Whether there is a justifiable reason

Sanction against violation of administrative laws is a sanction against the objective fact that is a violation of administrative laws and regulations in order to achieve administrative purposes, and thus, it may be imposed even if there is no intentional or negligent act on the part of the violator, barring any special circumstance, such as where there is a justifiable reason that does not cause any negligence on the part of the violation (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003). The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff does not intentionally prepare a false application of this case. However, even if the Plaintiff had no intention, the instant disposition is not unlawful.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's assertion was made with the purport that there was a justifiable reason in preparing the plaintiff's false application of this case, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff notified the defendant's employee in charge of the defendant's work as a part-time lecturer at the second semester of 2012, and that the employee in charge was the final workplace before the part-time lecturer's work as a part-time lecturer and completed the application for recognition of the recipient's qualification. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and therefore,

(3) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused or abused

Article 105(2)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "a person who has filed a voluntary report on a fraudulent act before investigating the person himself/herself may be exempted from additional collection." In this context, a voluntary report refers to a person who has voluntarily reported a fraudulent act and seeks to take the disposition. Therefore, a statement to respond to an inquiry or investigation by an administrative agency or a statement to deny a fraudulent act

In full view of the overall purport of statements and arguments as to this case, the defendant's employment insurance system, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence No. 6, and the defendant's employment insurance system, the plaintiff was suspected of double beneficiary on March 18, 2013. The defendant's employee asked the plaintiff about the above suspected facts by calling the plaintiff around that time, and the plaintiff's "the plaintiff's retirement from full-time professor" on August 31, 2012. The plaintiff was working as part-time lecturer after that time instructor, but he completed his lectures as a part-time instructor. The plaintiff's written application for recognition of the eligibility for benefits was asked that D entered the date of departure as of August 31, 2012. The plaintiff's written application of this case was "written as of August 31, 2012." Thus, according to the purport of denying fraudulent acts, the plaintiff's voluntary report as well as the plaintiff's allegation that he made a voluntary report to the above administrative agency.

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 fixed-type

Judges Secretary-General;

A person shall be appointed.