(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.6.3. 선고 2013구합1640 판결

On April 18, 2012, the Defendant revoked the restriction on the payment of unemployment benefits, the order to return, and the disposition of additional collection against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Upon the Plaintiff’s severance from “B” on August 31, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance to the Defendant on November 16, 2011.

B. The Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits of KRW 31,104 for the benefit period from November 18, 201, from November 23, 2011 to February 20, 2012, and paid job-seeking benefits of KRW 2,79,350 in total from November 30, 201 to February 20, 201.

C. However, on April 18, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff on April 18, 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiff operated the “Elaundry site D” (hereinafter “Elaundry”) located in D before the date of the application with her husband C, and received job-seeking benefits unlawfully, pursuant to Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act, restricting payment of unemployment benefits, returning the amount of job-seeking benefits, refund of KRW 2,79,350, and additional collection for the said total amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

This case’s laundry had been engaged in major laundry work, such as laundry, using a large-scale laundry facility instead of laundry machines, and the husband C had been working for the instant laundry work as a family member. Nevertheless, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff operated the instant laundry jointly with the husband. Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

1) Article 40(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "Any person who has received, or attempted to receive, unemployment benefits by fraudulent or other illegal means shall not be paid job-seeking benefits from the date on which he/she received, or attempted to receive, such benefits." Article 61(1) of the same Act provides that "The head of an employment security office may order the person who has received job-seeking benefits by fraudulent or other illegal means to return all or part of the total amount of job-seeking benefits paid to him/her, and additionally collect an amount not exceeding the amount of job-seeking benefits paid by such fraudulent or other illegal means in addition, "the head of an employment security office may collect an amount equivalent to or less than the amount of job-seeking benefits received by the person who has received the job-seeking benefits by fraudulent or other illegal means". In this context, "any false or other unlawful means" refers to all unlawful acts by a person ineligible for benefits, including pretending eligibility for benefits, or identifying the fact of employment or income occurrence, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du479, Apr. 29, 2003).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s husband’s 1, 2, 4, 6 evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 2 were unable to dispute between the parties, or the Plaintiff’s husband’s 1, 3, and 6 evidence Nos. 1, 201, after completing the business registration as “G laundry” on March 7, 201, the Plaintiff’s 2, 1, 3, 200, 1, 200, 3,000, 1,000, 2,0000, 2,0000, 3,000, 2,0000, 1,0000, 2,000,000, 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00.

3. Conclusion

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