(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.12.9. 선고 2015구합327 판결

On May 2, 2014, the Defendant’s decision to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits, to order the return of unemployment benefits, and to additionally collect them shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff retired from employment on the ground of “retirement due to the conditions of other companies” on November 9, 2013 when he worked as a reporter from November 7, 201 in C Co., Ltd., Ltd. located in the mountain field (U.S.).

B. On October 16, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits to the Defendant, thereby recognizing eligibility for benefits of KRW 120 days for fixed benefit payment and KRW 34,992 for job-seeking benefits. The Plaintiff received KRW 4,199,010 for 120 days on five occasions from October 23, 2013 to February 19, 2014 as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

C. In accordance with Articles 61(1) and 62(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 104 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the Defendant’s failure to report to the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff provided work to D Co., Ltd. (former trade name: E Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “D”) from November 8, 2013 during the benefit period to February 19, 2014, which was the end of the supply and demand period, was in violation of Article 47 of the Employment Insurance Act.

From October 31, 2013 to November 7, 2013, job-seeking benefits 279,930 won for unemployment recognition and from November 8, 2013 to February 19, 2014, each return of KRW 3,639,160 for 104 days, and the order was issued pursuant to Article 105(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act to additionally add 3,639,160 won to KRW 3,658,250 for total amount of KRW 7,558,250 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

D. On August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but the Employment Insurance Review Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on October 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff does not constitute “providing labor under obligation to report pursuant to Article 47(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, which attempts to establish D without remuneration.” In addition, the Defendant’s employee respondeded that the Plaintiff’s mere help to create a window is not recognized as a job-seeking activity, and the Plaintiff’s act of aiding and abetting a window is merely an act of aiding and abetting a press job-seeking site and a connection with a press company called “media miscellaneous,” and it is merely an act of aiding and abetting a window without reporting.

As the Plaintiff does not constitute “person who received job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means” under Article 62(1) of the same Act, the disposition between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is unlawful as it does not constitute “person who received job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 47 (1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "a qualified recipient shall report such fact to the head of an employment security office if he/she provides labor during the period in which he/she intends to obtain the recognition of unemployment," and Article 92 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that "if a qualified recipient falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall be deemed employed," and subparagraph 5 provides that "if a qualified recipient is engaged in a family business (including a person engaged in non-regular household affairs), such as commercial and agricultural business, or in another person's business and provides labor, it is deemed difficult for him/her to find regular employment in other business by providing him/

The issue of whether a person constitutes a "case" should be determined on the basis of whether it is deemed identical or similar to the case of providing labor under employment by the relevant workplace, by comprehensively taking into account the nature and content of the work performed, the price, repetition and continuity of the work performed, as well as the objective form of labor. In this case, comprehensively taking into account the entire purport of arguments, the Plaintiff and F returning to C on September 17, 2013, ② The Plaintiff established D on October 17, 2013, ② the Plaintiff participated in D on November 25, 2013, ③ the Plaintiff’s publication of the newspaper under title 2, 3, 15, 16, 2, 3, 15, 2, 3, 15, 3, 15, 2, 10, 3, 10, 13, 10, 5, 10, 13, 10, 25, 3, 2013.

In light of the time and circumstances when D, which can be known from these facts, continued to issue "C", the number of times the Plaintiff worked in D, and the nature and content of the work performed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff can be sufficiently confirmed from November 8, 2013 to that of D, and even if the Plaintiff did not receive remuneration from D, or the Defendant’s employee confirmed that it was not recognized as job-seeking activities, the Plaintiff constitutes a case where it is difficult for the Plaintiff to ordinarily find employment in other businesses by providing labor by participating in the F’s business and providing labor.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits without reporting it in violation of Article 47(1) of the Employment Insurance Act even though it provided work D, and therefore constitutes “person who received job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means” under Article 62 of the same Act. The Plaintiff’s assertion has no merit.

3. Conclusion

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