(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.1.12.선고 2015구단1622 판결

A. On March 30, 2008, the Plaintiff retired from office at Obaki Co., Ltd., and on May 29, 2008, upon applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance to the Defendant, the Plaintiff recognized eligibility of KRW 120 days for the fixed benefit payment and KRW 36,796 for job-seeking benefits. From June 5, 2008 to October 2, 2008 as indicated below, the Plaintiff received KRW 4,415,480 in total as job-seeking benefits.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On December 24, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to order the Plaintiff to pay job-seeking benefits pursuant to Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act on the ground that the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits without filing a report, even though he/she was employed by the Korea Industrial & Industry Co., Ltd. on July 7, 2008 during the benefit period (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Defendant issued an order to return the amount of job-seeking benefits illegally received and to pay the amount of job-seeking benefits [the total amount of KRW 7,359,140 (= the amount of illegal receipt + the amount of KRW 3,238,020 + the amount of additional collection + the amount of KRW 3,238,020 + the amount of additional collection due to one wrongful payment (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Eul 1, 7, 10, 12, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s instant disposition based on which the Plaintiff’s right to receive job-seeking benefits was extinguished by extinctive prescription after the lapse of three years from the date of payment of job-seeking benefits under Article 107(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The statute of limitations proceeds from the time when an objective right arises and it is possible to exercise such right, and is not in progress only during the period when such right is not possible." The case where "it is impossible to exercise such right" refers to a disability under the Act on the Exercise of such right, for example, the event where the existence of a right or the possibility of exercising such right is unknown, and even if there is no negligence due to the failure of knowing the existence of such right or the possibility of exercising such right, such cause does not constitute a legal disability (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Nu572, Dec. 26, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10763, Apr. 27, 2004). Therefore, in collecting the amount prescribed in the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act against a person who received insurance benefits by unlawful means, the statute of limitations on the above right shall be deemed to run from the date when the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service paid the insurance benefits, and the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service did not know the above cause for collection.

2) According to the above legal principles, if the defendant pays the unemployment benefits and issues an order to return them, the base date of extinctive prescription is the date when the defendant pays the unemployment benefits. However, the period from June 12, 2008 to October 6, 2008 when the defendant paid the unemployment benefits was in total five times, and the period from June 12, 2008 to June 2008 when the defendant paid the unemployment benefits was in excess of the amount twice the insurance benefits for the reason that the defendant received the unemployment benefits from the plaintiff by fraud or other improper means. Since the three years passed thereafter, the fact that the defendant issued the disposition in this case that the defendant collected the amount equivalent to twice the insurance benefits from the ground that he received the unemployment benefits from the plaintiff by fraudulent or other improper means is as seen earlier, the disposition in this case

3) Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Defendant’s right to receive job-seeking benefits against the Plaintiff was not extinguished by prescription, is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion pointing this out has merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.