1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff is leaving his/her position in Samchi Electronic Co., Ltd., and the same year.

4.6. The Defendant applied for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits pursuant to Article 43 of the Employment Insurance Act, and received recognition of eligibility for benefits on the same day.

B. After that, the “report on reemployment” under Article 44(2) of the Employment Insurance Act was submitted to the Defendant under the name of the Plaintiff as indicated below (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the report in this case”) and the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits equivalent to KRW 3,615,810 in total by obtaining recognition of unemployment from the Defendant, as follows.

(2) The job-seeking benefits payment amount for the period subject to unemployment recognition on the date of reporting reemployment efforts, and the date of determining job-seeking benefits for the unemployment recognition 1

4. From April 20, 200 to April 13, 2000

321,400 won 2

5. From May 18, 198 to April 21, 199

5. Report of this case 1,124,920 won 3.

Above June 19, 1900 up to June 15, 196

6. 15.1,124,920 won 4

Above June 16, 1900 up to June 14, 196

7. 11.11. 3,615,810 won in total;

C. However, at the time of the instant report, the Plaintiff was staying in the UK, and upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Plaintiff’s birth in the Republic of Korea was limited to the Plaintiff’s name via the Internet.

The defendant shall, upon notification by the Board of Audit and Inspection, delay later.

The report of this case is in violation of Article 89(6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 176 of Dec. 30, 2016), which was in force at the time of the report, that "the eligible recipient who intends to obtain unemployment recognition through the Internet shall faithfully report whether to engage in re-employment activities and income generated on the Internet by utilizing an authorized certificate on the date designated by the head of the competent employment security office at the place of application, and therefore, the Plaintiff received unemployment benefits by fraudulent or other unlawful means under Article 61(1) of the Employment Insurance Act.