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 October 31, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits with the Defendant on November 5, 2014, on the grounds that he/she retired from employment in the Bank of Korea, and the Defendant recognized KRW 210 of the fixed benefit payment days from November 12, 2014 to May 31, 2015, and paid KRW 7,539,860 of the job-seeking benefits, by recognizing KRW 210 of the fixed benefit payment days, KRW 201 of the total unemployment recognition days, KRW 25,512 of the job-seeking benefits, and KRW

B. On January 14, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 1,050,30 of the unemployment benefits (hereinafter “instant unemployment benefits”) to the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not employed on two occasions on December 24, 2014 and January 2, 2015 for the period (28 days) from December 18, 2014 to January 14, 2015, which is the period subject to the recognition of unemployment.

C. After that, on January 11, 2015 and January 16, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to restrict the payment and return of unemployment benefits for the instant unemployment benefits to the Plaintiff on June 13, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff was unable to file an application for the recognition of unemployment via the Internet on January 14, 2015, the unemployment recognition date, and that the Plaintiff’s family (h) filed an application for the recognition of unemployment as a proxy for the recognition of unemployment and received the instant unemployment benefits unlawfully.

On July 13, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review with an employment insurance examiner on July 13, 2016, but the said request for review was dismissed on September 23, 2016. On October 5, 2016, the Employment Insurance Review Committee made a request for review on October 5, 2016, but the said request for review was dismissed on November 9, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 through 7 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 did not know not only that the Plaintiff actually conducted job-seeking activities during the period subject to unemployment recognition, but also that the Plaintiff’s family members, etc. applied for unemployment recognition on behalf of the Plaintiff constitutes illegal receipt.