2011Nu25137 Revocation of Disposition to suspend unemployment benefits

A

The Administrator of the Gyeonggi Local Labor Agency;

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap18094 Decided June 22, 2011

January 19, 2012

February 16, 2012

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s disposition of suspending payment of unemployment benefits against the Plaintiff on October 4, 2010 is revoked.

The text shall be as shown in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 25, 2010, when the Plaintiff worked in Company B (hereinafter “B”) and the said Company went bankrupt, the Plaintiff was released from employment on August 25, 2010. On September 3, 2010, upon filing an application for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits with the Defendant for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits, the Plaintiff was recognized as a recipient of unemployment benefits on September 17, 2010 by the Defendant.

B. On October 4, 2010, the Defendant rendered a provisional disposition during the payment of unemployment benefits pursuant to Article 61 of the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility for benefits to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) despite having been employed as of September 1, 2010.

2. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the instant disposition was unlawful since it did not constitute a case where the Plaintiff was seeking unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means under the Employment Insurance Act, since the Plaintiff was employed in C after filing an application for unemployment benefits, but was unemployed at the time of filing an application for unemployment benefits, and was not present at the time of filing an application for unemployment benefits.

(b) Related statutes;

Employment Insurance Act

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

2. "Separation from employment" means the termination of an employment relationship between an insured worker and an employer. Article 40 (Requirements for Receiving Job-seeking Benefits)

(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 cases of running a profit-making business; hereafter the same shall apply in this Chapter);

(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 applicable requirements for receiving job-seeking benefits under Article 40 (1) 1 through 3, 5, and 6 (hereinafter referred to as "eligible recipient").

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 such

C. Determination

According to the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, job-seeking benefits shall be paid to an insured worker who has been employed despite his/her intent and ability to work, and job-seeking benefits shall be recognized by the head of the relevant employment security office that he/she satisfies the requirements for receiving job-seeking benefits, and a person who has received, or intended to receive, job-seeking benefits by fraudulent or other illegal means shall not be paid job-seeking benefits from the date on which he/she received, or attempted to receive, the benefits. In this case, if the total purport of the arguments is added to health class, the aforementioned evidence and evidence set forth in subparagraphs 2 through 5, and the testimony of the concerned witness D, the Plaintiff was working at the Eth D New Construction Work site performed by B, but the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on August 26, 2010, and the Plaintiff’s employment relationship was also accepted by C while taking over the above construction site around September 10, 2010; C was also subject to the Plaintiff’s employment contract set up in the unemployment recognition report as 10th of October 19, 2019.

According to this, since the plaintiff was unemployed at the time of applying for recognition of eligibility for unemployment benefits, it cannot be said that he/she received job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means.

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff was seeking to illegally supply and demand the Plaintiff in light of the fact that the Plaintiff was employed after having been employed for C and did not report such reemployment. However, the Defendant had taken the ground for disposition that the Plaintiff had filed the instant application in a false manner despite having been employed. The above assertion cannot be asserted as a legitimate ground for disposition since it cannot be deemed that the original ground for disposition and the basic facts were identical, and it is difficult to accept the said assertion in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not appear within the unemployment recognition

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful, so it is decided as per Disposition by accepting the plaintiff's appeal and cancelling the judgment of the first instance court.

Judgment of the presiding judge;

Judges Yang Sung-tae

Judges Yang Dong-hwan