beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 29, 2014, the Plaintiff retired from office on July 17, 2014 after having worked as a daily employee at the site of basic civil works on the Pacific Building of Songbuk-do and then recognized the eligibility for employment insurance benefits of KRW 150 days for the fixed benefit payment days and KRW 40,000 for the job-seeking benefits of KRW 150 days and KRW 40,000 for the job-seeking benefits from July 24, 2014 to December 10, 2014. The Plaintiff received KRW 6,00,000 from the Defendant in total on six occasions as follows.
On July 31, 2014 through July 31, 2014, the date of application (date of unemployment recognition) the payment subject to the recognition of unemployment is 1.20,000 through August 7, 2014; from August 1, 2014 to August 28, 2014; from August 28, 2014; from August 20, 2014; from August 3, 2014 to August 1, 2014; from August 3, 2014; from August 28, 2014; from August 3, 2014 to September 25, 2014; from September 20, 2014 to September 25, 2014; from September 25, 2014 to September 20, 2014;
B. On August 2, 2017, the Defendant issued the instant disposition ordering the Plaintiff to refund KRW 1,120,000 of the job-seeking benefits illegally received during the pertinent period subject to recognition of unemployment pursuant to Article 62 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 104 Subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits without filing a report, even though he/she worked as a daily employee at the construction site through a re-mining personnel (hereinafter “re-mining personnel”) from August 12, 2014 to August 13, 2014.
C. On October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request with an employment insurance examiner for review on October 17, 2017, but, on November 14, 2017, filed a request for review with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, and filed a request for reexamination again, but the Plaintiff received a ruling to dismiss the request for reexamination on March 21, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, No. 12 to 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff alleged unemployment benefits.