In a case where: (a) Company A was recognized as eligible for job-seeking benefits by applying for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits and received job-seeking benefits of KRW 3,173,900 from the head of the local employment and labor office through a report of reemployment; (b) Company A’s second re-employment report was in his/her stay in Japan; and (c) Company A confirmed that Company A’s punishment was prepared and submitted under the name of Company A through the Internet; and (d) Company A issued an order to restrict and return job-seeking benefits of KRW 1,124,920 upon receiving the second re-employment report pursuant to Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act, the case holding that the above disposition was lawful on the ground that Company A’s stay in a foreign country and received job-seeking benefits through a third party’s application constitutes job-seeking benefits, on the ground that it constitutes “any false or other unlawful means.”

A recognized eligibility for job-seeking benefits by applying for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits, and received job-seeking benefits of KRW 3,173,900 from the head of the local employment and labor office through a report of reemployment with a total of four times. Among them, the second reemployment report is a case where: (a) Party A was in stay in Japan and Party A’s punishment was confirmed by the head of the local employment and labor office; and (b) Party A confirmed the fact that Party A’s punishment was prepared and submitted under Party A’s name through the Internet; and (c) Party A issued an order to restrict and return job-seeking benefits of KRW 1,124,920 to Party A through

In full view of the language, structure, form, and content of Article 44(2) and (3) of the Employment Insurance Act, Articles 64 through 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27738, Dec. 30, 2016); and 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, Dec. 30, 2016), the case holding that, in principle, the head of an employment security office has allowed an eligible recipient to attend an employment security office for the purpose of uniformly preventing unfair payment of job-seeking benefits by directly confirming job-seeking activities, efforts for reemployment, intent, and ability to work, etc., and exceptionally, even if the eligible recipient reports his/her efforts to be re-employed on the Internet, the case held that the job-seeking benefits were not paid through a third party’s application while staying abroad, regardless of whether the actual requirements of job-seeking benefits were satisfied, and that constitutes a fraudulent method or unlawful method.

Articles 44(2) and (3), 61, and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act; Articles 64, 65, and 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27738, Dec. 30, 2016); 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, Dec. 30, 2016);

Plaintiff

Head of the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office

April 3, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On May 3, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of restricting unemployment benefits payment against the Plaintiff and cancelling the collection order of KRW 1,124,920.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 6, 2016, the Plaintiff recognized eligibility for job-seeking benefits by applying for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits to the Defendant, “the Plaintiff retired from employment at Rottena Co., Ltd. on December 31, 2015,” and received job-seeking benefits totaling KRW 3,173,900 upon receiving unemployment recognition from the Defendant through a report of re-employment efforts over a total of four occasions.

B. However, as the Plaintiff was staying in Japan from February 16, 2016 to February 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s second re-employment report (hereinafter “instant report”) was prepared and submitted in the name of the Plaintiff via the Internet upon the Plaintiff’s request by the Plaintiff’s punishment.

C. On May 3, 2016, the Defendant confirmed the foregoing facts and issued an order to restrict and return KRW 1,124,920 of the job-seeking benefits received by the instant report pursuant to Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On May 24, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for review with an employment insurance examiner on May 24, 2016, but was dismissed. On June 30, 2016, the Employment Insurance Review Committee filed a request for reexamination, but was likewise dismissed on May 9, 2018. The written decision was served on the Plaintiff on May 28, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 10, 14, 18, Eul evidence 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with education for “the report of re-employment on the Internet through an agent in a situation where he is staying abroad constitutes “the case where he receives unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means,” and, in unavoidable circumstances, he could change the schedule for the report of re-employment.” The Defendant did not mention such issues in the video education data and the unemployment benefits payment card, etc. before the Plaintiff pointed out.

The Plaintiff filed the instant report without the Defendant’s intent of unfair supply and demand due to such erroneous error. As such, the Plaintiff actually endeavored to be re-employed in good faith during the period subject to recognition of unemployment, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received job-seeking benefits by “any false or other unlawful means” as prescribed in Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act. Accordingly, the instant disposition ought to be revoked as unlawful.

B. Relevant provisions

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

C. Determination

1) In order to receive job-seeking benefits, the insured who retired from employment must meet the substantive requirements, such as active efforts to re-employment in the “unemployed condition despite having the intent and ability to work.” Moreover, such procedural requirements as receiving unemployment recognition by reporting that the insured has made efforts to re-employment at the date designated by the head of the employment security office (hereinafter “the date of unemployment recognition”) within the scope of one week to four weeks from the date of reporting unemployment and reporting that he/she has made efforts to re-employment.

On the other hand, with regard to the procedural requirements for job-seeking benefits, the Employment Insurance Act provides that an eligible recipient who intends to obtain the recognition of unemployment shall, in principle, be present at the unemployment recognition date and report his/her efforts to re-employment. However, exceptionally, Article 44(2) and (3) of the Employment Insurance Act, and Articles 64 through 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27738, Dec. 30, 2016) provide that, in cases of reporting via the Internet, one of the exceptional grounds (the reporting of re-employment through the Internet shall be permitted from the time of the second declaration) shall be reported in good faith on the Internet using an authorized certificate on the date designated by the head of the competent Employment Security Office (Article 89(6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 1766, Dec. 30, 2016).

In full view of the language, structure, form, and content of the aforementioned relevant statutes, the relevant statutes, in order to uniformly prevent unfair payment of job-seeking benefits by directly checking the content, intent, and ability of the employment security office for job-seeking efforts and re-employment, are, in principle, required the eligible recipient to appear at the employment security office on the unemployment recognition date and make a report of reemployment. In exceptional cases, even if the eligible recipient reports efforts to re-employment via the Internet, it seems that the applicant has to have reported

2) However, as recognized earlier, the Plaintiff was paid job-seeking benefits through a third party’s application while staying in a foreign country, and thus, the Plaintiff could not meet the procedural requirements regardless of whether the Plaintiff satisfies the substantive requirements. Therefore, this constitutes a case of receiving job-seeking benefits by “any false or other unlawful means” under the main sentence of Article 61(1) and Article 62(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, and the instant disposition based thereon is lawful.

3) Meanwhile, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, i.e., the Defendant: (a) around January 20, 2016, prepared an application for the recognition of unemployment on the employment insurance website with his own authorized certificate and sent the application to the Plaintiff on the Internet during the period subject to the recognition of unemployment; (b) after confirmation by the person in charge of the employment center, the unemployment benefits are paid on the following day; (c) it is impossible to transmit the application for the recognition of unemployment outside Korea; (d) it is difficult to confirm the unemployment status or job-seeking activities; and (e) it is not possible to receive the recognition of Internet unemployment in principle because the overseas job-seeking activities are difficult to confirm the unemployment status or job-seeking activities; and (e) if the Defendant fails to transmit the documents within 17:00 on the same day, he was present at the employment center within 14 days from the unemployment recognition date and provided related education; and (b) in light of the fact that the Defendant provided education at the Defendant’s.

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.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Park Man-ho (Presiding Judge)