(영문) 수원지방법원 2012.5.24. 선고 2011구합15016 판결

1. The Defendant’s disposition of ordering the return of unemployment benefits against the Plaintiff on March 24, 2011 is revoked. 2. The litigation cost is assessed against the Defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 11, 2008, the Plaintiff, as a daily employed worker, filed an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance with the Defendant on December 25, 2008, was recognized as eligible for benefits of KRW 80,000 per day from the Defendant on December 25, 2008 and was paid KRW 4,760,000 for job-seeking benefits from November 1, 2008 to May 16, 2009 (150 days) (hereinafter “instant disposition”). However, the Defendant confirmed, through the employment insurance network, that the Plaintiff had worked for 15 days per month (from November 11, 2008 to December 10, 208) prior to the date of applying for eligibility for benefits, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff would return KRW 4,760,000 for unjust enrichment (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

On December 208, the Plaintiff filed an application for unemployment benefits according to the guidance of the employee in charge of meeting the eligibility for unemployment benefits even though the Defendant notified the employee in charge of the last severance day and the details of his employment to the employee at the time of applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance of this case. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition that the Plaintiff would return the entire unemployment benefits received at the time of the instant application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance was unlawful since it entirely assumes responsibility for the Defendant’s negligence in performing its duties, even though the Plaintiff did

As to this, the Defendant did not constitute unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means, but received job-seeking benefits even if the number of working days during the one-month period prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits was 15 days, and thus, the Plaintiff’s payment of job-seeking benefits under Article 61(3) of the Employment Insurance Act constitutes a case where job-seeking benefits were erroneously paid, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Facts of recognition

In full view of the purport of each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, on December 11, 2008, the plaintiff entered the date of departure from employment as of December 5, 2008 at the time of applying for recognition of eligibility for the employment insurance benefits of this case. The plaintiff responded to the question as to whether the number of working days, including weekly holidays and monthly holidays, etc., for one month prior to the date of applying for eligibility for eligibility for benefits of this case is less than 10 days. From the date of application for eligibility for benefits on the back of the application, the plaintiff responded to the question as of whether the number of working days, including weekly holidays and monthly holidays, is less than 10 days before the date of application for eligibility for benefits (from the date of application until December 10, 2008) and the fact that the plaintiff entered the plaintiff's eligibility for benefits from 10 days to 10 days before the date of application for eligibility for benefits of this case, 20 days from 10 days to 20 days before the date of application for eligibility for recognition, as of the plaintiff's eligibility for benefits of this case, 10 days to 2.

(2) Whether job-seeking benefits are refunded

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff recognized that the number of working days during one month prior to the date of application for recognition of eligibility for the instant employment insurance benefits was 15 days and did not meet the requirements under Article 40(1)5 of the Employment Insurance Act.

However, the following circumstances can be seen from the above recognition. ① The Plaintiff’s application for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits was rejected for less than 10 days before the date of application for eligibility for job-seeking benefits, and the Plaintiff’s application was expressed as “10 days on the front side” for the same question, and the above provision appears to have been derived from a lack of understanding of simple mistakes or questions, and it does not constitute a case where unemployment benefits were received by fraud or other improper means under Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act; ② The daily worker’s eligibility for eligibility for benefits should be less than 10 days prior to the date of application for eligibility for eligibility for job-seeking benefits under Article 40(1)5 of the Employment Insurance Act. Even if the Plaintiff did not meet the above eligibility requirements, it appears that the Plaintiff’s application for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits had been rejected for less than 20 days on the ground that it did not change the eligibility for eligibility for benefits from 20 days before the date of application for eligibility for eligibility benefits.

Therefore, the disposition of this case cannot be exempted from revocation due to its illegality.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's title of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by citing it.