(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.1.23.선고 2019구합64977 판결

The disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 30, 2018 to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits, order to return, and additional collection shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for eligibility for job-seeking benefits under Article 43 of the Employment Insurance Act with the Defendant on the ground that he/she retired from employment from employment on July 11, 2016, and recognized the eligibility for benefits of KRW 90,416 on the fixed benefit payment date and KRW 43,416 on the job-seeking benefits day. From July 20, 2016 to October 17, 2016, the Plaintiff received KRW 3,907,410 as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

B. In addition, on April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for eligibility for job-seeking benefits with the Defendant on April 28, 2017, on the ground that he/she retired from employment from “C”, and recognized the eligibility for benefits of KRW 90 days for fixed payment days, daily amount of job-seeking benefits 46,584, and received KRW 4,192,550 as follows, upon recognition of unemployment for a total of four times from May 5, 2017 to August 2, 2017.

A person shall be appointed.

C. However, on August 24, 2016, the unemployment recognition date, the Plaintiff filed an application for unemployment recognition through an information and communications network on June 9, 2017, and on July 7, 2017, and had his/her spouse file an application for unemployment recognition on his/her own behalf. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes “the case of receiving unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means” under Article 61(1) of the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter “the Act”); (b) on November 30, 2018, on the ground of “the attendance and Internet”; (c) KRW 20,000; (d) KRW 16,00,000; (d) KRW 20,000,000; (e) KRW 20,000; (e) KRW 20,000; (e) KRW 20,000; (e) KRW 165,000; and (e) the Plaintiff returned additional amount to KRW 1816,0,2816.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s spouse’s application for recognition of unemployment via an information and communications network on behalf of the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to constitute “any false or fraudulent means” under Articles 61(1) and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether an eligible recipient who seeks to report reemployment through the Internet must complete reporting of job-seeking benefits by directly using an authorized certificate

According to Article 40(1)2 and 44(2) and (3) of the Employment Insurance Act, in order to receive job-seeking benefits, an insured worker who has retired from employment must actively endeavor to re-employment "in a situation where he/she is unable to find a job despite his/her intent and ability to do so" (hereinafter referred to as "date of unemployment recognition") and report his/her endeavor to re-employment at the date designated by the head of the Employment Security Office (hereinafter referred to as "date of unemployment recognition") and undergo the verification of unemployment (Procedural requirements). As to the procedural requirements for receiving unemployment benefits, Article 44(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that, in principle, an eligible beneficiary who wishes to obtain the recognition of unemployment may, in principle, obtain the verification of unemployment by reporting his/her endeavor to re-employment at the Employment Security Office on the date designated by the head of the Employment Security Office within one week from the date of unemployment declaration, and subparagraph 3 of Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the method of recognition of eligible beneficiary who directly falls under any of an information and communication network."

Meanwhile, Article 44(3) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "Where an eligible recipient falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she may obtain recognition of unemployment by submitting a certificate stating the reasons why he/she could not appear at the Employment Security Office," and provides that "where he/she could not appear at the Employment Security Office for seven consecutive days due to illness or injury (Article 44(2)); where he/she could not appear at the Employment Security Office for seven consecutive days due to interview with a job offerer through the employment placement of the Employment Security Office (Article 4(2)2); where he/she could not appear at the Employment Security Office for the purpose of undergoing vocational skills development training directed by the head of the Employment Security Office (Article 44(3)3); or where he/she could not

In full view of the language, structure, form, and content, etc. of the aforementioned relevant statutes, it is clear that the relevant laws and subordinate statutes require an eligible recipient to appear at an employment security office and report his/her efforts to re-employment. As such, the purport of the eligible recipient’s direct appearance is to uniformly prevent the possibility of unfair payment of job-seeking benefits by directly checking the content of job-seeking activities, the intent and capabilities of the employment security office for reemployment, etc. In addition, inasmuch as the payment of job-seeking benefits under the employment insurance system is a beneficial administrative action, and the operation of such system is bound to depend on real conditions such as financial situation, etc., a broad legislative formation right is recognized to determine the requirements. Ultimately, it is reasonable to view that the eligible recipient who intends to report reemployment through an information and communications network should complete the report of job-seeking benefits by directly using the authorized certificate by himself/herself, similar to the “direct attendance”

2) Whether the plaintiff's improper receipt was made

As long as the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff’s spouse apply for recognition of unemployment benefits on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff ought to be deemed to fall under the case where the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits on behalf of the Plaintiff by fraudulent or other unlawful means as referred to in Articles 61 and 62 of the Act (or, in full view of the overall purport of the entries and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 4 through 6, and 10, the following circumstances are that the IP, which the Plaintiff submitted to the Plaintiff for recognition of job-seeking benefits and the job-seeking benefits, is the same as the Plaintiff’s spouse submitted to the Plaintiff in e-mail, and is deemed to have received job-seeking applications by e-mail, and the Plaintiff is currently

Meanwhile, according to the evidence evidence evidence No. 2, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff received a non-prosecution disposition regarding the suspicion that "the plaintiff had his spouse apply for unemployment benefits on behalf of the plaintiff for recognition of unemployment benefits on behalf of the plaintiff on December 27, 2018, and received unemployment benefits unlawfully by allowing the plaintiff's spouse to apply for unemployment benefits on behalf of the plaintiff." However, unlike the fact that the final and conclusive criminal judgment on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence, the same value of evidence as the final and conclusive criminal judgment cannot be given to the prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition. Thus, the administrative judgment is not bound by the non-prosecution disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da21884, Dec. 26, 1995). The recognition of the ground for the instant disposition does not conflict with the non-prosecution disposition

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

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.