2010Guhap18094 Revocation of Disposition to suspend unemployment benefits

A

The Administrator of the Gyeonggi Local Labor Agency;

May 25, 2011

June 22, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition to suspend payment of unemployment benefits against the plaintiff on October 4, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 25, 2010, when the Plaintiff worked in Company B and the said Company went bankrupt, the Plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits to the Defendant on September 3, 2010, and received unemployment benefits from the Defendant on September 17, 2010.

B. On October 4, 2010, the Defendant rendered a disposition suspending unemployment benefits pursuant to Article 61 of the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility for benefits by unlawful means despite the status of employment as of September 1, 2010 to C Co., Ltd., which succeeded to the Plaintiff’s employment relationship from B, as of October 4, 2010.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After the plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility for benefits to the defendant on September 10, 2010, the business owner was employed by C on September 1, 2010, but reported the insured status retroactively to September 1, 2010, and the plaintiff was aware that the application for recognition of eligibility for benefits is automatically revoked if the application for recognition of eligibility for benefits is not filed after recognition of eligibility for benefits. Thus, the plaintiff did not report the employment of C Co., Ltd. on the ground that there was an intention to deny receipt of unemployment benefits. Thus, the disposition of this case must be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

Employment Insurance Act

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

2. The term "retirement from employment" means the termination of an employment relationship between an insured worker and a business owner;

Article 40 (Eligibility Requirements for Job-seeking Benefit)

(1) Job-seeking benefits shall be paid to an insured worker who has retired from employment meeting all the following requirements: Provided, That subparagraphs 5 and 6 shall apply only to a current or former daily worker at the time of the final severance from employment

2. The insured worker is able and willing to work but is still yet to be employed (including self-employed for profit-making business; hereafter the same shall apply in this Chapter);

Article 43 (Recognition of Eligibility for Benefits)

(1) All applicants for job-seeking benefits shall be subject to recognition by the head of an employment security office of the fact that they meet all eligibility requirements for job-seeking benefits under Article 40 (1) 1 through 3, 5, and 6 (hereinafter referred to as "eligible for benefits").

Article 61 (Restrictions on Benefits Due to Illegal Acts)

(1) Those who have received, or attempted to receive, unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means shall be denied job-seeking benefits from the date when they received, or attempted to receive, unemployment benefits: Provided, That the same shall not apply to any subsequent eligibility for job-seeking benefits that may be approved after the severance from employment related to the benefits.

In order to recognize eligibility for job-seeking benefits under the Employment Insurance Act or to receive job-seeking benefits, an applicant must be unemployed. However, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in subparagraphs 1 through 7 above, the Plaintiff, despite having prepared an employment contract with C Co., Ltd. on September 1, 2010 and employed C Co., Ltd, submitted it to the Defendant on September 3, 2010. Thus, the Plaintiff constitutes “a person who intends to receive unemployment benefits by fraudulent means as stipulated in Article 61(1) of the Employment Insurance Act,” and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Kim Jong-sik

Judges Lee Jin-young

Judges Yellow-gu