(영문) 서울행정법원 2012.4.27. 선고 2011구합39349 판결

On February 9, 2011, the Defendant revoked the restriction on the payment of unemployment benefits, the order for return, and the disposition of additional collection against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 20, 2010 after the Plaintiff retired from employment while serving as a daily employed worker at Company B, the Plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility for benefits under the Employment Insurance Act on the ground that the number of working days during the one-month period prior to the date of application (from August 20, 2010 to September 19, 2010) is less than 10 days, and received job-seeking benefits of KRW 1,065,30 in total from September 27, 2010 to November 1, 2010.

B. On February 9, 2011, the Defendant reported to the Plaintiff that the number of days worked during the one-month period prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits was 12 days in total, and received job-seeking benefits by falsely reporting that the said number was less than 10 days. On the ground that, on the other hand, the Defendant made a disposition to restrict payment of benefits pursuant to Articles 61(1) and 62(2) of the Employment Insurance Act, and issued an order to return KRW 1,065,300 as well as an additional collection of KRW 1,065,30 as the corresponding amount (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

【Unfounded facts, entry of evidence Nos. 5, 6 and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the process of calculating the number of working days based on memory at the time of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits, the remaining working days that were mistaken as of August 21, 2010 do not constitute 10 days. At the time, the employee at the time also received a written application for recognition of eligibility for benefits submitted by the Plaintiff without any problem. Ultimately, each of the dispositions of this case should be revoked, unless the Plaintiff did not falsely state the number of working days for the purpose of unlawfully receiving job-seeking benefits.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

Article 40(1)5 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that job-seeking benefits shall be paid to a person who is a daily employed worker at the time of the final severance from employment, if the number of days worked during the one-month period prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits under Article 43 of the Employment Insurance Act is less than ten days. Article 62(1) of the same Act provides that the head of an employment security office may order the person who received job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means to return all or part of the total amount of job-seeking benefits paid to him/her by fraud or other improper means, and in addition, the amount equivalent to or less than the amount of job-seeking benefits paid by fraud or other improper means may be collected in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor. "False or other improper means" generally referred to in Article 62(1) of the Employment Insurance Act means any unlawful act that leads to the pretending of eligibility for benefits, or the occurrence of income (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7494, Sep. 23, 2003).

According to the purport of oral argument in the evidence Nos. 6, 9, and 11 of Eul, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's ground for applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits falls under 12 days (from August 20, 2010 to September 19, 2010) before the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits, and that the plaintiff's allegation that the plaintiff's ground for applying for recognition, including the number of days of job-seeking benefits, was written on a daily basis during the 12-day period (from August 20, 2010 to August 21, 2010; August 23, 2010 to August 28, 2010; August 30; August 31, 2010; August 31, 2010; September 2, 2010 to September 4, 2010).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.