(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.2.5.선고 2019구합2418 판결

The disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on December 20, 2018 to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits and to order the return thereof shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 30, 2018, the Plaintiff retired from employment in B Co., Ltd., and on July 10, 2018, upon applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance (hereinafter “instant application”) to the Defendant, the Plaintiff was recognized as 180 days of the fixed payment days, 60,000 won of the former class, and 60,000 won of the benefit period from July 17, 2018 to November 13, 2018, and received KRW 7,20,000 as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On November 13, 2018, the fifth unemployment recognition date, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff was employed as of November 12, 2018 on D (hereinafter referred to as “D”), an incorporated association located in Seojin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City as of November 12, 2018, and received job-seeking benefits of KRW 1,680,000 without reporting employment. On December 20, 2018, the Defendant issued a disposition to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits to the Plaintiff on December 20, 2018, and issued an order to return KRW 1,680,000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit via a request for examination against an employment insurance examiner and a request for reexamination against the Employment Insurance Review Committee.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff called to the Employment Center on November 6, 2018 and asked questions about employment reports, etc.; however, on November 13, 2018, the Plaintiff was unable to enter the actual attendance record in the process of filing an application for unemployment recognition via the Internet on the Internet. As such, the Plaintiff did not receive unemployment benefits by unlawful and illegal means without the intention to receive unemployment benefits. In addition, it is unreasonable for the Defendant to recover 26 days’ unjust enrichment.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 61(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 16269, Jan. 15, 2019; hereinafter “Employment Report”) provides that a person who has received, or attempted to receive, unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means shall not be paid job-seeking benefits from the date on which he/she received, or attempted to receive, such unemployment benefits. Article 62(1) of the same Act provides that the head of an employment security office may order the person who has received, by fraud or other improper means, to return all or part of the total amount of job-seeking benefits received, and in addition, the head of

The amount equivalent to the amount of job-seeking benefits received by fraud or other improper means is to be collected. Here, “any false or other improper means” generally refers to any unlawful act committed by a person who is not eligible for benefits by pretending eligibility for benefits or concealing the fact of employment or the occurrence of income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7494, Sept. 23, 2003).

2) Determination

Examining the above facts and the aforementioned evidence in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, examining the following facts and circumstances that are recognized by adding the entry of the evidence No. 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant disposition is not deemed unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

A) On November 1350, 2018, the Plaintiff asked the call center to be employed before the unemployment benefits recognition date and asked the Plaintiff to work at work. On November 12, 2011, if the Plaintiff is employed as of November 12, 201 from the counselor at the time, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive wages by November 11, and the method of notification is accepted by online, visit, mail, or facsimile on the employment insurance website, and documents must be received within two months from the date of employment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was well aware that the Defendant should be notified of the employment to the Defendant if he was employed before the unemployment benefits recognition date.

B) The Plaintiff was employed from November 12, 2018 to work.

C) However, on November 13, 2018, the unemployment recognition date, the Plaintiff, upon preparing and submitting an application for unemployment recognition (Evidence No. 5) to the Defendant on November 13, 2018, failed to report the employment to D by stating that “the fact of employment is nonexistent in the column for verification of unemployment during the period subject to unemployment recognition,” and did not voluntarily report the omission of employment and report of employment within two months from the date of employment. In light of such circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have had no intention to receive unjust payment.

D) As such, the Plaintiff received full job-seeking benefits with respect to the period subject to recognition of unemployment, without stating the employment in the unemployment recognitionD prior to the unemployment recognition date.

E) ① Article 62(1) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 104 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that the head of an employment security office may order a person who received job-seeking benefits by fraud or other improper means to return all job-seeking benefits paid to him/her pursuant to Article 62(1) of the same Act; ② In full view of the fact that a voluntary report was made before investigation into employment during the period subject to the unemployment recognition and that employment was revealed through an investigation by the Defendant; and, even after such fact was revealed, the case of the Plaintiff cannot be treated equally; ③ If actual income was generated during the period subject to the unemployment recognition, the corresponding amount of job-seeking benefits out of the job-seeking benefits for workers’ livelihood stability and job-seeking activities; ④ In light of the purpose of the Employment Insurance Act, the Defendant’s order to return KRW 1,680,000 for the period subject to the unemployment recognition cannot be deemed to have violated the principle of proportionality against KRW 106,000.

Conclusion

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