2018Gu 1173 Madada 1173 Disposition of Orders for Unemployment Benefits Payment or Return

A

The President of the Central Local Labor Agency

November 27, 2018

December 11, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On February 28, 2018, the Defendant’s disposition of restricting unemployment benefits payment and ordering return to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 10, 2017, after being recommended at B on March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 2,88,200 for job-seeking benefits for a total of 62 days (excluding two days of daily work) from November 17, 2017 to January 19, 2017, by applying for recognition of eligibility for unemployment benefits to the Defendant.

B. On November 25, 2017, when filing an application for the recognition of unemployment, the Plaintiff reported that he/she worked for two days from November 25, 2017 to December 22, 2017 (job-seeking benefits received during the above period shall be KRW 1,304,350), which is the period subject to the recognition of unemployment. However, the Defendant: (a) reported 20,00 days from December 22, 2017 to 11; (b) reported 30,000 won from December 23, 2017 to January 19, 2018 (the amount of job-seeking benefits received during the above period shall be KRW 1,211,180; (c) returned the amount of unemployment benefits to the Plaintiff, including KRW 2,515,530,130,304; and (d) the amount of unemployment benefits paid to the Plaintiff during the period of 15,2015.218

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8 through 10, Eul evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s failure to report part of the Plaintiff’s work during the period of job-seeking benefits is recognized. However, even if the Plaintiff and his/her spouse were to have been employed due to his/her old age’s physical illness, making it difficult for him/her to work. Of the Plaintiff’s work details, it is limited to half on December 14, 2017 and December 20, 2017, and on December 10, 2017 and January 14, 2018, the instant disposition is unreasonable.

B. Relevant statutes

◆ 고용보험법 제61조(부정행위에 따른 급요의 지급 제한)

(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

(2) Notwithstanding the main sentence of paragraph (1), job-seeking benefits shall not be paid for the period subject to recognition of unemployment if false or other fraudulent means relate to any of the causes prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as filing reports under Article 47 (1) and filing false reports: Provided, That if two or more violations are committed, the main sentence of paragraph (1) shall apply

Article 62 (Order, etc. to Return) (1) The head of an employment security office may order a person who has received job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means to return all or part of the total amount of job-seeking benefits he/she has received, and in addition, he/she may collect an amount not exceeding the amount equivalent to the amount of job-seeking benefits received by fraud

Article 47 (Report of Work, etc. within Period subject to Recognition of Unemployment) (1) In the event that a qualified recipient provides labor or starts up a business during a period intended to obtain recognition of unemployment (hereinafter referred to as a "period subject to Recognition of Unemployment"), he/she shall report such fact to the head of

"Grounds prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the main sentence of Article 61 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act means any of the following grounds against an eligible beneficiary:

1. Where a person fails to report or falsely reports the fact that he/she has provided labor during the period for which he/she intends to obtain unemployment recognition (hereafter in this Article referred to as "period subject to unemployment recognition"), the head of an employment security office under Article 104 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (based on an order of return of job-seeking benefits following illegal acts) shall order a person who has received job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means to return it in accordance with

1. He/she shall order to fully return job-seeking benefits received;

2. Notwithstanding subparagraph 1, if a person falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 80 of the Decree (limited to one fraudulent act) and falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 80 of the Decree, only the job-seeking benefits paid for the unemployment period recognized as such reason shall be ordered: Provided, That if the difference between the number of days reported while a daily worker referred to in subparagraph 6 of Article 2 of the Decree provided his/her labor during the period for which he/she has reported his/her labor during which he/she intends to obtain unemployment but the number of days actually recognized as such does not exceed three days, only the job-seeking benefits paid for the unemployment period recognized as such reason shall be

3. Notwithstanding the main sentence of and the proviso to subparagraph 2, where a person falling under subparagraph 1 of Article 80 of the Decree voluntarily files a report on unlawful acts pursuant to Article 47 (2) of the Act before the head of an employment security office investigates his/her principal or his/her place of business, he/she shall order the person to refund only job-seeking benefits (limited to one voluntary report) for the date he/she provides labor during

The Plaintiff is a person who has received job-seeking benefits two times without filing a report even after providing labor. As such, in the event that the Plaintiff fails to report labor, etc. during the period subject to recognition of unemployment pursuant to Article 47(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, the Employment Insurance Act limits the payment of benefits due to fraudulent acts and orders to return the benefits pursuant to Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act. Furthermore, an order to return orders shall be issued to order the full return of 2,515,530 won paid during the period subject to recognition of unemployment, except where a voluntary report is filed pursuant to Article 62(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 80 Subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, and Article 104 Subparag.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not have worked on December 10, 2017 and January 14, 2018, it is difficult to deem that the order to return the benefits paid during the period subject to recognition of unemployment was unjustifiable as such.

Therefore, the instant disposition is justifiable.

Conclusion

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

Judges Kim Yong-sik