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

A. On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff retired from employment at Seoul Foreign Language High School and applied for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance to the Defendant on March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff recognized eligibility of KRW 180,000 for the fixed benefit payment days, KRW 40,000 for the daily benefit of job-seeking benefits, and received job-seeking benefits of KRW 4,80,000 for 120 days through five times in total, from March 17, 2014 to July 14, 2014.

B. On August 11, 2014, the sixth unemployment recognition date, the Plaintiff filed an application for the recognition of unemployment (hereinafter referred to as “application for the recognition of unemployment”). On August 11, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the period subject to the recognition of unemployment for 28 days from July 15, 2014 to August 11, 2014, the Plaintiff had engaged in job-seeking activities four times on the part of the companies, such as the dry Industry, EP Technology, B, and C, for four occasions. On August 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) reported two of the above four job-seeking activities, such as C and the dry Industry, among the above four job-seeking activities of the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not actively engage in job-seeking activities on the Plaintiff; and (b) disposed of only 140 days of job-seeking benefits for the remainder of the period of job-seeking benefits corresponding to 14/14 days of job-seeking benefits (hereinafter referred to as “job-seeking benefits”).

D. The Plaintiff filed a petition for review against the instant disposition on September 18, 2014, but the officer of the employment insurance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for review on November 3, 2014, and the Plaintiff again filed a petition for reexamination on December 23, 2014, but the Employment Insurance Review Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for reexamination on February 4, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked.

① While imposing obligations on the parties or restricting their rights and interests, the Defendant did not give prior notice to the Plaintiff or give an opportunity to present opinions in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act.

② Although the Plaintiff completed the workoutnet registration procedure for filing an application for recognition of unemployment, the Defendant, on April 21, 2014, ordered the Plaintiff to submit evidentiary data to the Plaintiff as a shipment, and the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of unemployment by submitting a name cards.

③ On April 21, 2014, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant about whether the link between the training of a licensed administrative agent and the establishment of an office of a licensed administrative agent and the job-seeking relationship. Therefore, the Defendant actively endeavored to support the Plaintiff’s reemployment in advance, and provided the Plaintiff with guidance and guidance on consultation, reemployment activity plan, modification, review, etc. related to his/her own business activities, but was erroneous to require the Plaintiff to submit the name without having responded to the Plaintiff

④ On August 11, 2014, the Plaintiff called from the Defendant that 2 of the above job offering company was false, and demanded the employee in charge to be in charge by telephone, August 11, 2014, and the staff in charge and the team leader in charge to provide an opportunity for explanation, and presented evidence, such as 20 copies of the representative administrative officer's name, 20 certificates of qualification, and certificates of completion of in-service training for administrative agents. The Plaintiff provided an opportunity for explanation to the false job offering company and provided 20 copies of the representative administrative officer's name and 20 copies of the unemployment verification as a substitute for the active job-seeking data received by the Plaintiff, without recognizing the Plaintiff's request as evidence for active job-seeking activities without recognizing the Plaintiff's request as evidence for in-depth job-seeking activities without examining or receiving the evidence for the job-seeking activities.

⑤ On September 18, 2014, the filing date of the Plaintiff’s application for unemployment recognition, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the partial claim for job-seeking benefits, but had the Plaintiff affix his/her seal retroactively to two copies of the application for unemployment recognition and the written disposition for job-seeking benefits as of August 11, 2014, and then delivered one of them to the Plaintiff.

⑤ On August 15, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition against the aforementioned abuse of authority by Defendant employees; however, the Defendant respondeded to the civil petition on February 16, 2015, after the period for handling the civil petition expires.

B. Determination

1) In full view of Article 2 subparag. 3 and 4 of the Employment Insurance Act, Articles 40(1)2 and 4, 42, 43, 44(1) and (2), 56(1), and 61(2) of the Employment Insurance Act, Articles 80 and 63(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 87(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, and Article 10(1) and (5) of the Regulations on the Recognition of Unemployment and the Re-employment Assistance to the Employment Insurance (Rules of the Ministry of Labor) of the Employment Insurance Act, in cases where the Plaintiff intended to receive job-seeking benefits by false or other unlawful means, such as visiting the job-seeking company to receive job-seeking benefits from the Defendant, or applying for job-seeking benefits by mail or Internet, the job-seeking benefits from the date on which he/she intended to receive such benefits.

(ii) the facts of recognition

A) At the time of filing an application for unemployment recognition, the Plaintiff has been using the method of submitting a written statement of job-seeking company’s name as evidentiary data for job-seeking activities. On August 11, 2014, the sixth unemployment recognition date, the Defendant D, as evidentiary data for job-seeking activities for the period subject to unemployment recognition (from July 15, 2014 to August 11, 2014), submitted the written statement of the date of job-seeking activities for the above four companies, stating the job-seeking recognition period of 28 days for unemployment recognition and its job-seeking benefits for the said period of 1,120,000 won to the Plaintiff (the date of conclusion, August 11, 2014; the date, Eul evidence No. 1-1); each of the instant applications for unemployment recognition was stated as “the notice of job-seeking activities for which the Plaintiff submitted,” and “the notice of the scheduled job-seeking activities for which the Plaintiff submitted, as C.D. 2014.

B) However, among the above four companies whose job-seeking activities were reported by the Plaintiff, C (the period subject to the recognition of unemployment: the period subject to the recognition of unemployment; the Plaintiff did not have any job-seeking activities; the Plaintiff visited the above companies at the time of the relevant job-seeking; nor did the above job-seeking activities were received. The Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff after filing an application for the recognition of unemployment; and D, on the same day, made a telephone survey on the above four job-seeking activities on the application for the recognition of unemployment (from July 15, 2014 to July 21, 2014) and the dry Industry (from August 5, 2014 to August 11, 2014; 20 days thereafter, 10 days thereafter; 10 days thereafter; 10 days thereafter; 20 days thereafter; 10 days thereafter; 10 days thereafter, 20 days thereafter; 10 days thereafter, 20 days thereafter, 10 days thereafter, 20 days thereafter.

C) On August 11, 2014, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to the effect that on August 11, 2014, the Defendant would not pay the Plaintiff the job-seeking benefits for 14 days during the unemployment recognition period, which was found to be a false and formal job-seeking job-seeking, and that the Defendant would pay 560,000

D) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, upon receipt of D’s notice of telephone call, proposed the Defendant Center to visit the Defendant Center to supplement the application, such as replacing D’s name cards to D, but D’s name cards could not be allowed. On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant Center to replace D’s name cards with 20 name cards from the head of the team in charge of D’s name cards, etc. However, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to provide guidance on the illegal receipt of job-seeking benefits, such as investigating the Plaintiff’s name cards submitted before accepting the Plaintiff’s request, without issuing the Plaintiff’s request. At that time, D’s notice was not issued to the Plaintiff on September 12, 2014, but issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on September 10, 2014, which was issued on September 14, 2014. The Defendant did not issue the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on September 20, 2014, which was issued on September 14, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] The judgment of the court below is without dispute, each of the above evidence, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 8-1, 8-2, Eul evidence 10-1 through 4, Eul evidence 11, 12, Eul evidence 11 and 12, Eul evidence 3)

A) The payment of job-seeking benefits as to the allegation 1 above is paid only when the applicant received unemployment recognition by actively re-employment activities. The Defendant’s disposition of job-seeking benefits on the ground that the Defendant cannot be deemed a disposition that imposes an obligation on the parties or restricts their rights and interests, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant has given prior notice or an opportunity to present opinions before rendering the instant disposition to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Defendant’s explanation of the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on August 11, 2014 before rendering the instant disposition and hearing the Plaintiff’s answer are as seen earlier.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above (1) argument is without merit.

B) As to the allegation in the foregoing paragraph (2), there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had filed an application for unemployment recognition by means of submitting a statement of name by the Defendant’s right to force on April 21, 2014. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in witness D’s testimony, it can be acknowledged that the employee D in charge of the Defendant instructed the Plaintiff, who was not familiar with the computer, to be able to file an application for unemployment recognition even by means of directly visiting the recruitment company and submitting the name of the recruitment company after making an interview. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion

C) As to the above argument, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff asked the Defendant for job-seeking or self-employment activities related to the administrative agency’s office in filing an application for unemployment recognition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of argument in the witness witness D’s testimony prior to the instant disposition, it is recognized that the Plaintiff received information on job-seeking activities, etc. related to the unemployment recognition at the time of filing an application for recognition of the first eligibility for employment insurance benefits and the first unemployment recognition visit at the time of the first unemployment recognition visit. Furthermore, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff merely sought unemployment recognition and job-seeking benefits due to job-seeking activities while filing the instant application for unemployment recognition, and stated that the Plaintiff did not have any column for self-employment activities, it is difficult to view that the circumstance that the Defendant neglected to support the Plaintiff’s efforts for reemployment or did not inform the Plaintiff of his self-employment activities, as part of the Plaintiff’s application for job-seeking benefits arising from the Plaintiff’s job-seeking activities as illegal grounds for the instant disposition.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above three claims are without merit.

D) In order to receive job-seeking benefits from the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s active re-employment is subject to verification of unemployment through active re-employment activities. If the Plaintiff seeks unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means or files an application for verification of unemployment differently from the fact of re-employment activities during the period subject to verification of unemployment, job-seeking benefits may not be paid.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff, while filing an application for the unemployment recognition in this case, submitted documentary evidence of the company’s name, even if he did not receive the job-seeking benefits, and was engaged in the instant work-seeking industry and C, which can be seen as a case of seeking unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means or reporting differently from the facts about the contents of the re-employment activities during the period subject to the unemployment recognition. As such, the Plaintiff cannot receive the said two companies’ job-seeking benefits or their job-seeking benefits. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff has a duty to provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to vindicate his intention to receive the job-seeking benefits due to the falsity and form of job-seeking benefits, or to present any other name, and there is no legal basis for imposing such duty on the Defendant.

In addition, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant, while re-auditing and auditing the Plaintiff, dealt with the Plaintiff as a crime, and instead, it can only be recognized that the Defendant provided guidance on the illegal receipt of job-seeking benefits, such as the investigation of ordering the Plaintiff to submit to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above 4 grounds are without merit.

E) According to Article 58 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, the Defendant shall notify the applicant of the decision on whether to pay job-seeking benefits.

Although the Defendant issued the instant disposition and immediately decided not to deliver the instant disposition, the Defendant’s staff D notified the Plaintiff of a part of the site for job-seeking benefits and the grounds therefor by telephone, and the Plaintiff also visited the Defendant Center with the knowledge of the content of the instant disposition, and paid only KRW 560,000 of the job-seeking benefits recognized by the Defendant around August 13, 2014, which was subsequent to the instant disposition, to the Plaintiff. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was well aware of the content of the disposition immediately after the instant disposition. Furthermore, since the Defendant issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on September 12, 2014, which was the seventh unemployment recognition date, it is difficult to deem that the instant disposition was unlawful since the Defendant did not immediately deliver the instant disposition to the Plaintiff.

In addition, each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 11 is insufficient to deem that the defendant, on September 18, 2014, prepared the application form for the recognition of unemployment of this case (Evidence No. 1-1) and the written disposition of this case retroactively and received the plaintiff's signature, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, as seen earlier, the plaintiff signed the application form for the recognition of unemployment of this case and submitted it to the defendant on August 11, 2014, and the defendant delivered the written disposition to the plaintiff on September 12, 2014, the seventh unemployment recognition date.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above 6 claims are without merit.

F) The issue of illegality of administrative disposition in the administrative litigation as to the allegation of the above claim is to be determined based on the law and fact-finding at the time of administrative disposition. Since the response to the plaintiff's civil petition was delayed after the disposition of this case, it cannot be a ground for illegality in determining the illegality of the disposition of this case, and such circumstance alone cannot be deemed to be illegal. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion of the above 6th claim cannot be accepted.

4) Ultimately, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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