1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 6:

On August 30, 2010, the Plaintiff, a foundation, applied for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits to the Defendant on August 30, 2010, on the ground that he/she was on duty at the Seocheon-gu Daejeon Foundation B and was on duty on August 20, 201, recognized eligibility for benefits of KRW 180,024,480 as job-seeking benefits from September 6, 201 to January 19, 201.

B. In addition, on August 26, 2011, the Plaintiff claimed early re-employment allowance from the Defendant on the ground that “the Plaintiff was re-employed as an insurance solicitor to the Yeongi Insurance Agency Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant Company”) as of January 21, 201,” and received KRW 636,220 from the Defendant.

C. Meanwhile, on November 29, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits to the Plaintiff, to return KRW 2,086,220, and to additionally collect KRW 1,287,240.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The grounds for disposition that the Defendant made while rendering the instant disposition are as follows: “The Plaintiff received not on January 21, 201, but on December 15, 2010, an insurance solicitor code from which the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant as the date of re-employment, and was employed in the instant company, and received unemployment benefits unlawfully without making a proper report even though it was employed in the instant company.”

On December 18, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with an employment insurance examiner on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on February 19, 2014. On March 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review by the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but was dismissed on April 9, 2014.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant company gave insurance solicitor code to the Plaintiff is limited to the condition that the instant company undergo education on insurance solicitation until January 201, 201.

However, during the above-mentioned education period, the recruitment of insurance is restricted.