(영문) 수원지방법원 2012.5.23. 선고 2011구합9424 판결

1. The Defendant’s revocation of the restriction on the payment of unemployment benefits, the order to return, and the disposition of additional collection against the Plaintiff on April 27, 2011.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 3, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance with the head of the Sungnam District Labor Agency (the Ministry of Employment and Labor amended by Presidential Decree No. 22269, Jul. 12, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22269, the name of the Defendant was changed according to the organization of the Ministry of Employment and Labor and its affiliated agencies; hereinafter the same shall apply) and received payment from the Defendant in total six times from February 10, 2009 to July 9, 2009, for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits of KRW 150,000 for the fixed benefit payment date and KRW 40,000 for KRW 150,000 from February 10 to July 9, 2009.

B. On April 27, 2011, the Defendant restricted job-seeking benefits received unlawfully against the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff was paid job-seeking benefits for at least ten (10) days prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance,” and issued an order to return the amount of job-seeking benefits paid KRW 6,00,000,000 as well as an additional collection of KRW 6,00,00 as equivalent to the amount of job-seeking benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant rendered the instant disposition based on the individual labor expense statement submitted by B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) who was employed as a worker at the time of applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits, and based on the individual labor expense statement submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was paid for 19 days prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits. However, the Plaintiff only worked for 8 days prior to February 3, 2009, which was the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits, and submitted the individual labor expense statement prepared differently from the facts. Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) "False or any other fraudulent means" under Article 61 (1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 1039, Jun. 4, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Employment Insurance Act") generally refers to any unlawful act committed by a person ineligible for benefits who pretends to be eligible for benefits, conceals the fact of employment, or income-generating, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7494, Sept. 23, 2003; 2002Du7494, Sept. 23, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "Employment Insurance Act") and Article 40 (1) 5 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the number of days worked for one month prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits under Article 43 of the Employment Insurance Act shall be less than 10 days, and thus, the Plaintiff’s act of receiving job-seeking benefits for not less than two months prior to the date of receiving such eligibility for benefits from the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits.

(2) According to Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 10, each of the above evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 10, ① a detailed statement of individual labor cost prepared with respect to the Nowon-gu High-speed Railroad C (hereinafter referred to as the "instant construction") and the content of personal labor cost inquiry into the daily workers of the employment insurance network, respectively, shall be deemed to have worked for 27 days at the site of the instant construction work from Dec. 3, 2008 to Dec. 30, 2008, and each of the above personal labor cost statements No. 20 days from Jan. 2, 2009 to Jan. 21, 2009; ② a statement of personal labor cost No. 3,765,360 won at the cost of December 20, 2008; ③ part of the labor cost of the Plaintiff’s deposit account No. 2067, Dec. 26, 2009>

However, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 8-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 8-1, Eul evidence 9-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, non-indicted 9, non-indicted 2-1, non-indicted 9, non-indicted 2, non-indicted 9, non-indicted 2, non-indicted 9, non-indicted 2, non-indicted 9, non-indicted 2, non-indicted 9, non-indicted 2, non-indicted 9, non-indicted 2, non-indicted 9, non-indicted 2, non-indicted 9, non-indicted 9, non-indicted 2, non-indicted 9, non-indicted 2, non-indicted 9, non-indicted 2, non-indicted 9, etc.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it did not recognize the grounds for disposition.

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.