2012Nu16321 Revocation of revocation of a decision to refund unemployment benefits erroneously

A

The Administrator of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office North Korea Office

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap38 Decided May 17, 2012

February 6, 2013

March 20, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from participation.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s decision to return KRW 1,716,30 to the Plaintiff on March 30, 2011 is revoked.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and therefore, it is cited for this decision in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the appellate court, the Plaintiff asserts that the employment insurance examiner decided within 40 days of the Plaintiff’s request for examination, and that the employment insurance examiner’s decision was unlawful since it exceeded that time limit. However, the examination by the employment insurance examiner is limited to the procedure of examining the legality of the disposition of this case upon the Plaintiff’s request for examination of the disposition of this case by the Defendant, and thus, if the procedure is unlawful, the examination by the employment insurance examiner’s request for examination of the disposition of this case would be unlawful.

No appeal may be made. This part of the claim is rejected.

Next, the plaintiff asserts that the period at issue in the instant case satisfies the requirements for job-seeking benefits by actively making efforts for reemployment with the intent and ability to work.

However, Article 87(2)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the subject of temporary layoff benefits under Article 52 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall be deemed as having the intent and ability to work and not having been actively re-employed. In practice, the Plaintiff is recognized as being unemployed due to medical care during that period, and the circumstances in which the Plaintiff was receiving temporary layoff benefits from the Intervenor are recognized. Moreover, even based on all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had the intent and ability to work and has made an active effort for re-employment.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.

The presiding judge, senior judge and senior judge

Judges Noh Jeong-il

Judges Jeong Jae-ok