실업급여 지급제한 및 반환명령처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 31, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) retired from methyl Co., Ltd. on February 3, 2015, applied for recognition of eligibility for unemployment benefits to the Defendant on February 3, 2015; (b) recognized eligibility for unemployment benefits of KRW 90,000,000 for the fixed benefit payment days; and (c) received job-seeking benefits of KRW 3,705,140 in total after obtaining unemployment recognition as listed below.
The payment of the period subject to the unemployment recognition shall be determined on February 17, 2015 from February 10, 2015 to February 329, 2015, February 17, 2015; and on March 17, 2015, from March 17, 2015 to March 17, 2015, from March 17, 2015 to March 17, 2015; and on March 17, 2015, from March 17, 2015 to March 17, 2015; on March 14, 2015 to April 18, 2015; on April 14, 2015 to April 14, 2015; on April 15, 2015 to April 15, 2015 to April 15, 2015;
B. On April 14, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff’s words were paid KRW 1,152,710 for the third job-seeking benefits on behalf of the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff had been staying abroad, and issued an order to restrict the payment of KRW 1,152,710 for the third job-seeking benefits received by the Plaintiff on June 29, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asked the Defendant whether a third party can file an application for unemployment recognition on behalf of the Defendant due to his stay abroad, and the Plaintiff’s speech and the Plaintiff applied for unemployment recognition on behalf of the Defendant’s employee. As such, the instant disposition that ordered the Plaintiff to return job-seeking benefits by deeming that the Plaintiff is responsible for filing an application for unemployment recognition is unreasonable
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. 1) In full view of the provisions of Article 40(1)2 and 40(1)4 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 44(2) and (3) of the Employment Insurance Act, the insured who has retired from employment to receive unemployment benefits (job-seeking benefits) shall have the intent and ability to receive “work”.