2018 oldest 50328 Imposition of Penalty Surcharges

A

The Director General of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office

May 29, 2018

June 26, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of additionally collecting KRW 28,800,000 against the Plaintiff on November 3, 2017 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 2016 to August 2017, Sejong (hereinafter referred to as “SIS”) applied for subsidies to reduce working hours by reducing the Plaintiff’s contractual work hours from 40 hours a week to 20 hours a week, and applying for subsidies to reduce wages, and the Plaintiff also applied for subsidies to reduce working hours by 30% or more of wages in the same purport.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant paid 9,600,000 won to Sejong, while paying 14,40,000 won to the Plaintiff. However, on October 20, 2017, based on the Plaintiff’s mobile phone calls calls, etc., the Defendant revealed that the Plaintiff only worked as a franchise for the main business at his/her place of business and did not have worked for 20 hours a week at Sejong. On November 3, 2017, Article 35 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 78(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule thereof, the Defendant issued an order to return 14,40,000 won and an additional collection of 28,80,000 won for subsidies to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff returned 14,40,000 won for subsidies to the Plaintiff). Meanwhile, according to Article 28-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 28(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, the Defendant continued to receive the wage reduction system for more than 15 months.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry B in Evidence Nos. 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether a disposition for additional collection is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, while working in Sejong school from April 2013, the number of working hours and salary was reduced to 50%, the employment subsidy was received to 14,400,000,000 won, and the Plaintiff did not request the confirmation of the attendance to that school, and did not affix a seal directly to that school. As such, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, since it is difficult to lead a life, additional collection disposition of KRW 28,80,000 is harsh.

B. Determination

First, it is examined whether the Plaintiff actually worked in the Sejong School.

In full view of the statements and the purport of the whole arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 8, the plaintiff, on March 31, 201, 201, prior to April 2013, 201, that the plaintiff started to work for 40 hours a week at Sejong, had no record of exclusively performing the three-time duties in Songpa-gu, Seoul; C, from November 20, 2012, had worked at Sejong; and "the plaintiff was only aware of the face because he did not know that he had worked at the Ansan-gu Research Institute and did not work accurately; from April 1, 2017 to October 19, 201, the plaintiff's mobile phone base station was 651 cases at the mobile phone station, and there was no record that the plaintiff had worked for 40% or more of the address of 1,500 and 44% of the river site, and there was no record of the plaintiff's 1,654% or more of the river site.

Next, we examine whether the additional collection disposition against the plaintiff is legitimate.

Article 78 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act provides for additional collection up to five times the amount received at the time of fraudulent receipt, and where there is no unlawful act for the last five years, only two times the amount of illegal receipt shall be additionally collected, and where a voluntary report is filed, additional collection shall be exempted.

In light of the purport of the Employment Insurance Act, the Defendant’s additional collection of the Plaintiff is lawful, taking into account the legislative intent of the Employment Insurance Act that provides for additional collection up to five times to prevent moral hazard, such as: (a) the Plaintiff’s payment of the subsidy, 16 times and repeated times, and equity with C, taking into account the following: (b) the Plaintiff’s payment of the subsidy, stating that “the thorough need for commuting management (the return of three times the amount received at the time of false report and false report on commuting to and from work)”; (c) the Plaintiff submitted false evidence and repeated receipt of unjust evidence on 16 occasions, even though not having actually commuting to and from work; and (d) the Plaintiff’s employee C also became final and conclusive

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-sik