(영문) 서울행정법원 2010.12.3. 선고 2010구합30529 판결

On April 11, 2008, the Defendant confirmed that a decision to return employment insurance benefits and to additionally collect them against the Plaintiff is null and void.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 1, 2-2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 5-1, and Eul evidence 5-3.

A. On August 17, 2007, the Plaintiff retired from Company B, who was employed on and around November 6, 2007, and thereafter, on November 6, 2007, the Defendant filed an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance with the Defendant as the number of working days during the previous one month (from October 6, 2007 to November 5, 2007) is less than 10 days.

B. The Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits of KRW 120 days for the fixed benefit payment days and KRW 26,070 for the daily benefit amount, and paid KRW 2,372,490 to the Plaintiff on November 20, 2007 through February 12, 2008. The Defendant found that the Plaintiff worked for 19 days in the non-party company C (hereinafter “non-party company”) for the first month prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance, and subsequently, on April 11, 2008, reported the confirmation of the work details of the non-party company that the Plaintiff worked for 19 days in the month prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance. The Plaintiff rendered a false notification of eligibility for job-seeking benefits under Article 40(1)5 of the Employment Insurance Act to the Plaintiff for less than 10 days and received the payment of the job-seeking benefits after having been recognized to have been paid the eligibility for benefits under Article 61 and Article 62-2 of the Employment Insurance Act (1).

2. Whether the disposition is invalidated;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) After the Plaintiff retired from Company B, the Plaintiff was provided accommodation for about 4-5 days at the place of business of the non-party company through a branch, and did not have worked in the non-party company for about 19 days and the non-party company did not work in the non-party company. However, since the Plaintiff was treated as working in the non-party company for 19 days due to the mistake in the non-party company's employees, the instant disposition is null and void as it is based on the above mistake of facts, which constitutes the

2) Meanwhile, even though the defendant was submitted on November 13, 2007 by the non-party company the documents that the plaintiff employed the plaintiff for 19 days, the defendant sought an excessive amount of job-seeking benefits by making the disposition of this case on April 11, 2008. If the defendant had notified the plaintiff that the above documents were received in advance, the plaintiff did not immediately correct the above documents or seek additional job-seeking benefits. Thus, the defendant was partly responsible for causing the disposition of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case which is not entirely reflected therein is invalid because it violates the excessive prohibition principle.

(b) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form is as specified in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

According to the statement in Eul 2 and Eul 4-2, each of the above statements, it can be found that the non-party company prepared and submitted a written statement of opinion that the plaintiff had worked for 19 days at the Non-party company for the period from October 7, 2007 to October 30, 2007 at the Seoul East Employment Support Center. The plaintiff recognized the above working contents against the defendant on March 22, 2008 and submitted a written statement of opinion that he would pay 4,74,980 won in installments for 12 months. Thus, even if the period working at the non-party company for less than 10 days prior to the date of application for the job-seeking benefits, the non-party company prepared and submitted a written statement of opinion that recognizes the working period of 19 days for the non-party company's own, support the non-party company's report on confirmation of the work details, and it can not be viewed that the plaintiff could not be found to have actually worked at the time of the disposition in this case.

In addition, the place where the non-party company reported the confirmation of the labor details to the plaintiff is not the defendant, but the Seoul East Employment Support Center for the non-party company is the Seoul East Employment Support Center. The non-party company did not notify the plaintiff of the fact that the non-party company knew or could have known the fact that it reported the work details to the Seoul East Employment Support Center, while receiving job-seeking benefits 2,372,490 won through four times. In addition, even if such circumstance is acknowledged for domestic affairs, the defect caused by such circumstance cannot be deemed as a serious and obvious defect that could be caused to nullify the disposition of this case. Accordingly, the disposition of this case is valid,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is decided as per the Disposition because of the lack of reason.