beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part regarding the defendant's land pay disposition and the restriction on payment disposition on November 30, 2009 is reversed, and this part is applicable.
Reasons
1. The decision is made ex officio;
Article 35(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 9315, Dec. 31, 2008; Act No. 1039, Jun. 4, 2010; hereinafter “former Employment Insurance Act”) provides that “The Minister of Labor may order a person who has received or intends to receive support for employment security and vocational skills development programs under the provisions of this Chapter by fraud or other improper means, to restrict such support or to return the amount of support received by fraud or other improper means, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.”
(hereinafter “instant legal provisions”). (b)
The Constitutional Court rendered a decision on March 31, 2016, 2014Hun-Ga2, 2015Hun-Ga24, that the part of the provision of this case, “the restriction on support as prescribed by Presidential Decree” (hereinafter referred to as “the restriction on support”) in the provision of this case, is unconstitutional on the ground that it goes against the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation under Article 75 of the Constitution, and that “the part of the order to return the amount subsidized by fraudulent or other illegal means” (hereinafter referred to as “the order to return”) is not unconstitutional.
C. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the records of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court, on November 30, 2009, the Defendant received or attempted to receive employment maintenance support payment for the Plaintiff by fraud or other improper means, and applying the part on the restriction on support under the legal provision of this case, ① a site pay disposition for 15 applications, such as employment maintenance support payment (hereinafter “instant site pay disposition”), and ② a decision on the period of restriction on payment from February 24, 2009 to August 2, 2010 (hereinafter “instant restriction on payment”) by applying the legal provision of this case, and ③ a decision on the period of restriction on payment from February 24, 2009 to August 2, 2010 (hereinafter “instant restriction on payment”), and ③ a refund order of return amount of KRW 5,23,270, and KRW 23,421,50, May 50.