(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.8.14. 선고 2017구단32060 판결

On November 8, 2016, the Defendant revoked restrictions on the payment of unemployment benefits, orders for return, and additional collection made against the Plaintiff on November 8, 2016 (the date of disposition stated in the written complaint’s claim appears to be the date of November 10, 2016, referred to as “2016, November 8, 201).

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff retired from employment at B Co., Ltd. and on September 3, 2013, upon applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance to the Defendant, recognized eligibility of KRW 210 days for the fixed benefit payment days, KRW 40,000 for the job-seeking benefits, and received KRW 8,400,000 in total for 210 days from September 10, 2013 to April 7, 2014 as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On October 15, 2013, which is the second unemployment recognition date, the third unemployment recognition date, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff had his spouse staying abroad as of January 7, 2014, which is the fifth unemployment recognition date, on November 12, 2013, and the sixth unemployment recognition date, at the time of February 4, 2014, enter the Republic of Korea, using the Plaintiff’s authorized certificate, file an application for recognition of unemployment (hereinafter referred to as “instant application”); the Defendant issued 30 additional collection of job-seeking benefits on the ground that the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits on November 8, 2016, including “the fourth, seven, and eight applications for recognition of unemployment”; the Defendant issued 60 additional collection of job-seeking benefits on the aggregate of KRW 30,00,000, KRW 60, KRW 300, KRW 80, KRW 60, KRW 208, and KRW 60, KRW 60,0000, KRW 60, 3060, respectively.

C. On January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the disposition, filed a request for review with an employment insurance examiner on January 31, 2017, but the request for review was dismissed on March 15, 2017. On June 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but the request for reexamination was also dismissed on July 17, 2017.

D. Meanwhile, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right to receive a refund of KRW 1,120,00 according to the third unemployment recognition, which was paid on November 12, 2013, has expired as of November 15, 2016 upon the Plaintiff’s receipt of the said disposition, the Defendant, on July 10, 2017, changed the amount of job-seeking benefits to KRW 5,840,00, the sum of the amount of job-seeking benefits that the Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff, as of July 10, 2017, and the amount of additional collection to KRW 2,240,000, total job-seeking benefits upon the application for unemployment recognition, as of KRW 5,6, and KRW 1,120,000, and KRW 200,000, the amount of the Plaintiff’s additional collection to KRW 40,000,0000, 200, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In light of the following, the Plaintiff’s public official’s explanation that overseas employment activities may be conducted by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s spouse’s application for unemployment recognition on behalf of the Plaintiff is within the scope of the ordinary home-based authority under Article 827 of the Civil Act, and even if not, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the third party is prohibited from filing an application for unemployment recognition using the Internet on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not know that the above method constitutes unlawful means, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s receipt of job-seeking benefits upon the instant application falls under the case of receiving job-seeking benefits by “any fraudulent or other unlawful means” under Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act or “any other unlawful means.”

2) Since the three-year extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s right to receive the return of the amount of job-seeking benefits has already been completed at the time the Defendant notified of the change in the amount of the return order, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) As to the non-existence of the grounds for disposition, “false or other unlawful means” under Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act refers to any unlawful act by which a non-eligible person disguises eligibility for benefits or conceals the fact of employment or the occurrence of income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7494, Sept. 23, 2003).

위 법리에 비추어 이 사건을 보건대, 고용보험 관련 법령의 내용 및 취지와 을 제11 내지 15호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 고용보험법 제40조 제1항 제2호, 제4호, 제44조 제2항, 제3항의 규정을 종합하면, 실업급여(구직급여)를 수급받기 위해서는 이직한 피보험자가 '근로의 의사와 능력이 있음에도 불구하고 취업하지 못한 상태'에서 '재취업을 위한 노력'을 적극적으로 하는 등의 실체적 요건과 직업안정기관의 장이 지정한 날(이하 '실업인정일'이라 한다)에 출석하여 재취업을 위한 노력을 하였음을 신고하여 실업인정을 받는 등의 절차적 요건을 모두 갖추어야 하는 점, ② 고용보험법 제44조 제2항 본문 및 단서, 구 고용보험법 시행령(2016. 12. 30, 대통령령 제27738호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제65조에서는 실업의 인정을 받으려는 수급자격자는 실업인정일에 직업안정기관에 직접 출석하여 구직급여를 신청하는 것을 원칙으로 하면서, 부득이한 사유로 실업인정일에 출석할 수 없게 된 경우에는 실업인정일의 변경을 신청하도록 하고 있고, 고용보험법 제44조 제3항 제1호 내지 제4호로 직업안정기관에 출석할 수 없었던 경우이거나 '도서지역(제주특별자치도 본도 및 방파제 또는 교량 등으로 육지와 연결된 도서는 제외한다)에 거주하는 자로서 실업인정의 특례를 신청한 자'와 '인터넷을 통하여 직접 재취업활동 및 소득발생 여부를 신고할 수 있다고 직업안정기관의 장이 인정하는 사람'(구 고용보험법 시행령 제65조 제8호, 제9호)의 경우에는 출석할 수 없었던 사유를 적은 증명서를 제출(고용보험법 제44조 제3항)하거나, 우편·팩스 또는 인터넷을 이용하여 실업인정 신청[구 고용보험법 시행규칙(2016. 12, 30. 고용노동부령 제176호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제89조 제4항]을 하는 방법으로 실업인정을 받을 수 있도록 직접 출석 원칙에 대한 예외사유를 열거하고 있는 점, ③ 이와 같이 실업인정을 받기 위해서 원칙적으로 실업인정일에 직접 출석하여야 하고 불가피한 사유가 발생하거나 실업인정의 특례를 인정받은 경우에 한하여 직접 출석의 예외를 인정하고 있는 취지는, 근로자가 실업한 경우에 생활에 필요한 급여 상당의 금전을 지급하여 실업으로 인한 경제·사회적인 어려움을 해소함과 동시에 직업안정기관의 장이 구직활동의 내용: 재취업을 위한 노력·근로의 의사와 능력 등을 직접 확인함으로써 부정한 구직급여 수급을 미연에 방지하기 위함인 점, ① 나아가 실업인정의 특례자로서 '인터넷을 통하여 직접 재취업활동 및 소득발생 여부를 신고할 수 있다고 직업안정기관의 장이 인정하는 사람'(구 고용보험법 시행령 제65조 제9호)이라고 하더라도, 구 고용보험법 시행규칙 제89조 제6항은 직업안정기관의 장이 지정한 날에 공인인증서를 활용하여 정보통신망을 통하여 '직접' 재취업활동 및 소득발생 여부를 성실하게 신고하도록 규정하고 있는바, 예외적으로 '인터넷을 통한 신청'이라는 실업인정 신청방법에서의 특례가 인정되는 경우라 하더라도 수급자격자는 적어도 실업인정일에는 직업안정기관에 '직접 출석 '한 경우와 마찬가지로 반드시 본인이 직접 공인인증서를 이용하여 실업인정을 신청하여야 한다고 봄이 타당한 점, ⑤) 민법 제827조 소정의 일상가사대리권은 부부가 일상의 가사, 즉 부부 공동생활에 통상적으로 필요한 행위를 대리할 수 있다는 것으로서, 그 범주에 부부 중 일방이 구직급여 수급자로서 행정청을 상대로 하는 신청 행위까지 포함된다고 볼 수 없고, 위 규정을 근거로 배우자가 수급자의 실업인정신청까지 대리할 수 있다고 해석하는 것은 직업안정기관의 장이 수급자를 상대로 구직활동의 내용·재취업을 위한 노력·근로의 의사와 능력 등을 직접 확인하고자 하는 법령의 취지에도 반하는 점, ⑥ 피고는 수급자 취업지원 설명회, 취업희망카드 교부 등의 교육을 통하여, 지

In extenuating circumstances, such as the attendance of the person in question and employment or interview, the unemployment recognition date may be changed in advance or within 14 days after filing a report, and where the person in question wishes to obtain the unemployment recognition through the Internet, the plaintiff himself/herself shall apply for the unemployment recognition by utilizing an authorized certificate within the unemployment recognition date, and the plaintiff seems to have been aware of this fact. 7 Even if the plaintiff did not hear such explanation from the defendant, the sanctions imposed on the violation of administrative laws and regulations are imposed based on the objective fact of violation of administrative laws and regulations to achieve administrative purposes. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as where the failure to perform the duty of the person in question is not caused intentionally or negligently, it may be imposed even if the person in question has no intention or negligence on the part of the person in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5177, Sept. 2, 2003). Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff could not be deemed to have caused the plaintiff to apply for the unemployment recognition directly by using the authorized certificate directly against the law.

2) As to the claim for the expiration of the extinctive prescription, Article 107(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the right to receive or return subsidies, unemployment benefits, child care leave benefits, or maternity or paternity leave benefits, etc. under Chapters III through V, shall expire if it is not exercised for three years." In addition, the initial date of the extinctive prescription of the right to receive unemployment benefits, etc., which the Defendant paid to the beneficiary, shall be the date the Defendant paid unemployment benefits to the beneficiary, barr

On the other hand, in issuing an order to return job-seeking benefits and a disposition to additionally collect job-seeking benefits based on illegal receipt, where an administrative agency orders a recipient to return and takes a corrective disposition after discovering errors and correcting the amount to be additionally collected, a corrective disposition to reduce the amount of return and additional collection shall have legal effect only with respect to the reduced amount. As such, the original order

The substance is not a separate disposition, but a disposition that leads to the change of the original return order and the additional collection disposition, which leads to the benefit of the beneficiary, such as the partial revocation of the return order and the additional collection disposition. As such, the original return order and the additional collection disposition are not entirely invalidated. In a case where a dispute is raised as the remaining part of the correction disposition is illegal, the subject of an appeal litigation remains due to the correction disposition in the initial disposition. Thus, the determination of whether the pertinent disposition was unlawful should be based on the initial disposition.

On November 8, 2016, the Defendant issued an order to return KRW 3,360,00 (total sum of job-seeking benefits 3 through 8) to the Plaintiff, and issued an additional collection of KRW 3,360,00 (total sum of job-seeking benefits 3,5, and 6), and issued an order to return job-seeking benefits on July 10, 2017 (total sum of job-seeking benefits 4 through 8), with KRW 5,840,00 (total sum of job-seeking benefits 4 through 8), and additionally collected amount of job-seeking benefits 2,240,000 (total sum of 5 and 6 job-seeking benefits), and the Plaintiff’s right to return the amount of job-seeking benefits 1,60,000 (the total sum of job-seeking benefits 5,60,000) before and after the expiration of the original order to return the amount of job-seeking benefits 1,601 to 16.

3. Conclusion

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