2011Guhap14617 Order to restrict and return unemployment benefits and revocation of revocation of additional collection

A

The Head of Central and Central District Employment and Labor Agency

March 29, 2012

April 26, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On February 28, 2011, the Defendant revoked the restriction on the payment of unemployment benefits, the order to return the amount of fraudulent benefits, and the decision of additional collection against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 13, 2010, the Plaintiff, as a daily employed worker, filed an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance with the Defendant from January 20, 2010 to February 20, 2010, for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits. The Plaintiff received payment of KRW 1,280,000 for job-seeking benefits (32 days) from the Defendant upon recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits as KRW 40,00 per day.

B. However, on February 28, 2011, pursuant to Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act, on the grounds that the claimant filed a false report on the number of daily work days during the one-month period prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits, the Defendant issued a restriction on the payment of unemployment benefits, an order to return the illegally received amount, and an additional collection disposition (the amount of unlawful receipt KRW 1,280,000, the additional collection amount of KRW 1,280,280,000, the total amount of KRW 2,560,000).

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

During the period subject to unemployment recognition, on December 24, 2008, the Minister of Employment and Labor applied for the recognition of eligibility for employment insurance without including the number of working days in the number of days regardless of whether the wage was paid, and thus, it does not receive unemployment benefits by "a false or other unlawful means." In light of the fact that the plaintiff's health status is not good, and that the plaintiff lives as a worker, at least the additional collection disposition of the instant disposition should be revoked as it deviates from or abused the discretionary authority.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The Employment Insurance Act provides that the head of an employment security office may order a person who received job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means to return all or part of the job-seeking benefits received, and additionally collect an amount below the amount equivalent to the job-seeking benefits received by such fraudulent or other improper means in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor. Here, the term "false or other improper means" refers to any unlawful act committed by a person who is not eligible for benefits in general in order to disguise eligibility for benefits or conceal the fact of employment or the occurrence of income (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2270, Sept. 5, 2003).

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 8, the plaintiff may recognize that the plaintiff had worked for work on the site of reinforced concrete construction work performed by D Co., Ltd for three days from December 13, 2009 to December 15, 2009, from three sections of earth and structures among the Section No. 2 of the same month, from the 18th to the 24th day of the same month, from among the EF (Gho) road expansion packing work performed by D Co., Ltd., for seven days from the 18th day of the same month, and the plaintiff received KRW 960,000 for seven days from D Co., Ltd. on January 22, 2010, on the other hand, there is no evidence supporting that the plaintiff was erroneous that his total number of working days was less than 10 days.

Therefore, inasmuch as the Plaintiff applied for the total number of working days during the period subject to unemployment recognition to be less than 10 days and received unemployment benefits after receiving unemployment recognition, the Plaintiff constitutes a person who received unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion to that effect is without merit.

(3) In addition, it is difficult to view the instant disposition or the additional collection disposition among them solely on the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, and the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and assistant judge;

Judges Park Jae-woo

Judges Park Gin-uri

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.