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

A. On August 31, 2013, the Plaintiff received an application for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits under the High Employment Insurance Act from the Defendant on January 17, 2014 on the ground that he/she retired from employment in the Strategy and Finance Bank, and received payment of KRW 8,400,000 (from January 4, 2014 to August 21, 2014) for the total amount of job-seeking benefits, which was received from the Defendant on February 7, 2014, KRW 40,000, from February 10, 2014 to August 22, 2014. < Amended by Act No. 12326, Aug. 21, 2014>

B. On April 4, 2014, May 30, 2014, and July 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received job-seeking benefits in violation of Article 44(2)3 of the Employment Insurance Act; (b) Article 65 subparag. 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27738, Dec. 30, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) Article 89(6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 176, Dec. 30, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (d) ordered the Plaintiff to file an application for job-seeking benefits using the Internet instead; and (d) ordered the Plaintiff to return the amount of job-seeking benefits paid to the Plaintiff on December 19, 2016; and (e) ordered the Plaintiff to return the amount of job-seeking benefits paid to the Plaintiff at the same time.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not only that the Defendant has been recognizing unemployment against the Plaintiff without any particular objection, but rather, the Defendant’s working-level officer merely informed the Defendant that he can receive job-seeking benefits only for job-seeking activities in the Republic of Korea.