(영문) 서울고등법원 2011.8.17. 선고 2011누1001 판결

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On April 11, 2008, the defendant confirmed that the decision to return employment insurance benefits and to additionally collect unemployment benefits against the plaintiff is null and void.

Reasons

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of new allegations and judgments made by the Plaintiff in the following paragraphs, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance.

2. The plaintiff's new assertion and judgment as to the new assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 61(2) of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 80 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, and Articles 104 and 105 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, where a person fails to report or falsely reports the fact that a person provided labor during the period for which he/she wishes to obtain unemployment recognition on one occasion, only the job-seeking benefits paid for the unemployment period recognized as such reason shall be ordered (Article 104 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act). In such cases, the Defendant may be exempted from additional collection (Article 105 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act). Unlike the foregoing provision, the Defendant orders the return of job-seeking benefits for the remainder three times except for the job-seeking benefits that the Plaintiff received on four occasions from the Defendant, and the exemption from additional collection of job-seeking benefits is unlawful,

B. Determination

Article 62 (1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the head of an employment security office may order a person who has received job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means to return all or part of the job-seeking benefits, and in addition, the head of an employment security office may collect an amount not exceeding the amount of job-seeking benefits paid by such fraud or other improper means in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. Article 104 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act delegated by the head of an employment security office shall, in principle, order the person who has received job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means to return the entire amount of the job-seeking benefits paid to him/her during the period for which he/she intends to obtain unemployment recognition (Article 80 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act) or who fails to report on providing labor during the unemployment recognition period (Article 80 (4) 4 of the Employment Insurance Act) or who applies for recognition of unemployment status, the head of an employment security office shall report such fact to an employment security office for less than 10 days prior to the unemployment recognition date (Article 14).

On November 6, 2007, the Plaintiff submitted an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance to the Defendant (Article 80 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act) and submitted a false report to the Defendant on November 2007, whether the Plaintiff submitted an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance (Article 80 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act) and thereafter failed to report the provision of labor during the period for which he/she wishes to obtain unemployment or falsely reported the fact (Article 80 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act).

Articles 104 and 105 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act shall not apply to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.