(영문) 인천지방법원 2012.5.18. 선고 2012구합687 판결

On March 23, 2011, the Defendant revoked the restriction on the payment of unemployment benefits, the order of return, and the disposition of additional collection against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 3, 2009, the Plaintiff applied for the recognition of eligibility for employment insurance for the Defendant on the ground that the number of days worked during the month prior to the date of application falls short of 10 days before the date of application, and recognized eligibility for benefits of KRW 150 (73 days in actual receipt), 35,198.1 billion in daily job-seeking benefits. From October 6, 2009 to October 7, 2009, the Plaintiff received the amount of job-seeking benefits from the Defendant in total as KRW 2,569,430 in total.

B. On March 23, 2011, the Defendant returned the full amount of job-seeking benefits (2,569430 won) already received pursuant to Article 62 of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 1039, Jun. 4, 2010; hereinafter the same) and issued an order to return unemployment benefits and to additionally collect job-seeking benefits (2,56940 won) equivalent to the amount of job-seeking benefits (hereinafter referred to as “instant order”) received by the Plaintiff on the ground that the number of days of daily employment within the same one month prior to the date of application for recognition of eligibility for benefits was ten days (2,56940 won).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff argues that the plaintiff's disposition of this case was unlawful since the plaintiff did not receive unemployment benefits or other reasons because he did not receive unemployment benefits in the light of the comprehensive employment support center, such as receiving the application form for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance, although he was a daily worker of the stock company B on June 29, 2009 and on June 1, 2009 and June 2, 2009, it was registered on June 1, 2009 and June 1, 2009.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

1) On June 3, 2009, the Plaintiff completed education related to unemployment benefits at the Minor Employment Support Center, and filed an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance with the Defendant on the same day.

2) On June 3, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant at the time of the above application for eligibility for unemployment benefits, stating "whether the number of working days per month prior to the date of application for eligibility for eligibility for employment benefits is less than 10 days", "whether the number of working days per month prior to the date of application for eligibility for eligibility (gold) falls short of 10 days", and "the number of working days per month prior to the date of application for eligibility for eligibility benefits" is less than 10 days", and "the certificate of eligibility for unemployment" as of June 3, 2009 shall be "the person himself shall be 209, June 3, 2009, and shall be present at the Gimman General Employment Support Center for the period of one month prior to the date of application for eligibility for eligibility benefits (from May 3, 2009 to June 3, 2009) and shall be confirmed to be less than 10 days prior to the date of application for eligibility benefits, and shall be verified to be more than 20 days after receipt.

3) According to the employment insurance network (EMs and June 2009), the Plaintiff is respectively registered on May 2, 2009 (EM 2, 2009; from May 4, 2009 to May 10, 2009; and on June 18, 2009, from May 2, 2009 to June 2, 2009 to May 2, 2009.

4) The Plaintiff received KRW 895,950 on June 15, 2009, and KRW 199,100 on July 14, 2009 from the Plaintiff Company B to the financial account in the name of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 through 6 evidence, Eul 3, 4 and 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

The plaintiff appears to have explained about the meaning of "the number of working days" before June 3, 2009, as follows: ① the plaintiff received unemployment benefits-related education on June 2, 2009; especially the defendant's "the 2-month period prior to the date of application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance (from May 3, 2009 to June 3, 2009)" stated that "the 20-day period prior to the date of application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance (from May 3, 2009 to June 2, 2009)" was stated as "the 20-day period prior to the date of application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance (from May 3, 2009 to May 3, 2009)"; however, the plaintiff stated that the 29-day period from May 3, 2009 to June 18, 2009 were less than the 9-day comprehensive employment insurance support center's 9-day period.

Therefore, inasmuch as the Plaintiff, who does not meet the above requirements for job-seeking benefits, received unemployment benefits from the Defendant by stating different facts as to such requirements, this constitutes a case where job-seeking benefits are received by means of false or fraudulent means under Article 62(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.