2020Nu39312 Revocation of revocation of disposition of unjust enrichment

A

The head of the Central and Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

Suwon District Court Decision 2019Guhap10233 Decided April 14, 2020

July 2, 2020

August 13, 2020

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits, to order the return, and to additionally collect unemployment benefits against the Plaintiff on December 22, 2017 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as follows. Thus, the court’s findings of fact and determination that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion are justifiable even if the Plaintiff appealed and the evidence submitted to the court are examined in both the first instance court and the first instance court, since Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are the same as the grounds for the first instance judgment (the grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff do not differ significantly from the contents asserted by the Plaintiff in the first instance court.)

[Supplementary or added parts]

○ The second written evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance, "Nos. 1 through 12, and Nos. 17 through 19," shall be written with "Nos. 1 through 7, 9 through 12, and 17 through 19," respectively.

○on No. 4 of the first instance judgment, "Evidence No. 6-1 through 3, 22, and 23 of the evidence No. 6-1 of the first instance judgment" shall be added to "Evidence No. 2, 6, 22, 23, 27 of the first instance judgment (including the number of pages)".

○ The following is added to the first ten pages of the first instance judgment.

F 8 In the first instance judgment (hereinafter referred to as "related judgment") in the case where B filed a claim against the Plaintiff for prohibition of infringement of copyright and neighboring rights and damages against the Plaintiff, “Plaintiff” was recognized as “the fact that B retired on March 25, 2015 while serving as the head of the team in charge of technology in the Jung-gu District Court 2017Gahap72099 (hereinafter referred to as “the case”), but this is not inconsistent with the grounds of the instant disposition that “the Plaintiff provided labor to D after formally retired from B on March 25, 2015.” In addition, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, the fact that the Plaintiff served in D after formally retired from B on March 25, 2015 is sufficiently confirmed.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The presiding judge, judge and deputy judge

Judges Kang Han-sung

Awards and Decorations for Judges