1. The Defendant’s disposition of return of KRW 3,600,000 against the Plaintiff on October 28, 2016 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From February 2, 2012 to November 10, 2015, the Plaintiff was called to transport goods essential for the national economy in wartime, etc. or to support duties related thereto pursuant to the Military Service Act, and served onboard ship reserve personnel as onboard ship reserve personnel.

B. During the above convocation period, the Plaintiff filed an application for job-seeking benefits under Article 40(1) of the Employment Insurance Act with the Defendant after the employment relationship with the UNEM Co., Ltd terminated following the termination of the contract, and received KRW 3,600,000 in total.

[ table] The amount of supply and demand of employment insurance benefits for insured workers during the period subject to recognition of unemployment (the number of days of receipt) on October 27, 2013, the date of acquisition of the recipient qualification date of the date of loss of the recipient qualification for the job-seeking benefits for insured workers, and 3,60,000 on August 22, 2014, August 22, 2014, 200

C. On October 28, 2016, the Ministry of National Defense, regardless of the actual period of onboard ship reserve service, interpreted that the period of call-up is prohibited from commercial activities and concurrent offices other than onboard ship service. On the ground that “after enlistment into onboard ship reserve service, commercial activities under the Military Service Act are prohibited, and the requirements for receiving unemployment benefits are not satisfied,” the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the return of the above 3,600,000 job-seeking benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff satisfied the requirements set forth in each subparagraph of Article 40(1) of the Employment Insurance Act and received job-seeking benefits lawfully. As such, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff returned the received job-seeking benefits is unlawful. 2) The instant disposition in violation of the principle of statutory reservation is based on the Ministry of National Defense’s interpretation and interpretation guidelines and legal basis.