2011Revocation of revocation, such as suspension of unemployment benefits, etc.

A

The Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency Head of the Seoul Regional Labor Office

February 17, 2012

February 22, 2012

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's decision that as of January 28, 201, the suspension of payment of unemployment benefits against the plaintiff and the suspension of return of unemployment benefits and additional collection (it is apparent that the purport of the claim is a clerical error in the "disposition of additional collection", although it is stated that the claim is a cancellation of additional collection) is revoked.

On August 20, 2010, the Plaintiff, who is a daily employed worker, applied for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits to the Defendant on August 20, 201, recognized eligibility of KRW 150 days for the fixed benefit payment days, KRW 29,722, and received job-seeking benefits of KRW 1,902,240 in total from the 27th of the same month to October 29 of the same year, and thereafter, on January 28, 2011, on the ground that the Defendant falsely reported that the Plaintiff had worked for less than 10 days during the month immediately before the date of application for recognition of eligibility for employment benefits, the fact that the Plaintiff suspended the payment of unemployment benefits under Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act and ordered the return of the unemployment benefits already paid and the additional collection of the same amount (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition”). There is no dispute between the parties.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 5, 6, Eul evidence 9-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 12-4, 5, and Eul evidence 15, the plaintiff's evidence 11 (2010, 7, 20 from July 20, 2010 to August 19, 201, the 23th of the same month, the 28th of the same month from the 26th of the same month, the 6th of August 5 and the 6th of the same month, the 7, 9th of the same month, and Eul evidence 9-1, 1, 2, 2, 4-1, 2, 2-4, 2-1, 2-2, 3-4, 2-1, 2-4, 2-1, 2-4, and 5-1.

Therefore, the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits that can be received only when the number of working days per month prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits falls under the period of less than 10 days by falsely reporting that the actual number of working days per month prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits pursuant to Article 40(1)5 of the Employment Insurance Act, which constitutes a time when receiving unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means. Accordingly, the instant disposition issued by the Defendant pursuant to Articles 61(1) and 62(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, and Articles 104 subparag. 1 and 105(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, Sept. 16, 201) are lawful.

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

The presiding judge, judge and assistant judge.

Judges Yoon Young-man

Judges Choi Young-hoon