2015Guhap139 Revocation of Disposition, such as restriction on the payment of unemployment benefits

A

The Director General of the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office

March 26, 2015

April 16, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of restricting the payment of unemployment benefits, ordering the return of unemployment benefits, and imposing additional collection on the Plaintiff on January 24, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff was recognized as eligible for benefits by applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance to the Defendant (the fixed benefit payment days of 210 days, the amount of job-seeking benefits of 40,000 won, the benefit period of 20,000 won from April 1, 2013 to November 18, 2013), and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 2,560,000 in total on three occasions from April 23, 2013 to June 25, 2013 as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

B. From June 24, 2013, the Defendant confirmed on June 25, 2013, the fact that the Plaintiff had been paid job-seeking benefits without reporting it at the time of applying for the recognition of unemployment, and on January 24, 2014, issued a decision to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits, order return, and make additional collection (the amount illegally received KRW 80,00,000, the return amount of the period subject to the recognition of unemployment, the additional collection amount of KRW 80,000, the additional collection amount of KRW 1,200,000, the total amount of KRW 1,200,000) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed a request for review against the instant disposition with the employment insurance examiner on April 26, 2014, but was dismissed on May 26, 2014. However, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but was dismissed on January 10, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, upon receiving the notice of attendance from the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., to the attendance at the office from June 24, 2013, performed the business of transferring the job-seeking benefits, but did not report employment on the unemployment recognition date on the wind that does not accurately recognize the job-seeking date due to the failure to prepare the employment contract at the time, and later sought the method of returning the job-seeking benefits on June 24, 2013 and June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. to revise the job-seeking benefits after the unemployment recognition date ( June 25, 2013) to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., which was requested to obtain the above approval from the company, but it was eventually illegal because it did not take proper measures and received the unfair payment without considering such circumstances.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 40(1)2 of the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “If a person has provided labor during a period subject to verification of unemployment, he/she shall file an application for verification of unemployment with the head of an employment security office, stating such fact in the first written application for verification of unemployment, after the person has provided labor.” Article 47(1) of the Act and Article 69(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that an eligible recipient shall file a report with the head of an employment security office, stating such fact.

Meanwhile, Articles 61(1) and 62(1) of the Act provide that a person who has received, or attempted to receive, unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means may, without paying, all or part of the job-seeking benefits from the date on which he/she received, or attempted to receive, such unemployment benefits, may also order the person to return all or part of the paid job-seeking benefits, and in addition, a person may collect an amount equivalent to

"False or other unlawful means" under Article 61 (1) of the Act refers to any unlawful act committed by a person who is not eligible for unemployment benefits in general by pretending eligibility for benefits or concealing employment facts or income generated (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7494, Sept. 23, 2003); Article 61 (2) of the Act; Article 80 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act; and Article 104 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, the act of receiving unemployment benefits without fulfilling the obligation to report the above provision of labor constitutes "the act of receiving unemployment benefits by fraudulent or other unlawful means" under the above paragraph (1); Provided, That if the above unlawful act is committed once, the job-seeking benefits shall not be paid as a whole from the date of receiving the benefits, but only for the period subject to unemployment recognition, and the return of job-seeking benefits shall also be ordered to return job-seeking benefits paid for the period subject to unemployment recognition.

2) 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 을 제4 내지 14호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 보태어 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ①① 원고는 2013. 6. 25. 인터넷으로 3차 실업인정신청을 하였을 당시 실업인정대상기간(2013.5.29. ~ 2013.6.25.)동안 2차례 구직활동 (조일공업(주), ㈜인피닉스)을 하였고, 근로내역 및 취업사실은 없다고 신고한 점, ② 그런데 ㈜그랜드모터스는 2013. 7. 3. 원고가 2013. 6. 24. 취업한 것으로 고용보험 피보험자격 취득신고를 하였고, 원고의 연봉계약서상 계약기간이 2013. 6. 24.부터 2014. 6. 25.까지로 기재되어 있으며, 원고의 인사기록카드에도 입사일이 2013. 6. 24.로 기재되어 있는 점, ③ 원고는 고용보험 수급자격을 인정받으면서 피고로부터 실업인정대상기간 중 근로제공 사실에 대한 신고의무와 이를 위반할 경우 부정수급에 해당하게 된다는 취지의 교육을 이수하였는바, 2013. 6. 24.과 2013. 6. 25. ㈜그랜드모터 스에서 사무실 이전 관련 업무를 한 것은 임시적인 근로제공에 해당하므로 원고로서는 당연히 3차 실업인정신청 당시 ㈜그랜드모터스에 근로제공을 한 사실을 고지하였어야 하는 점, ④ 한편 그랜드모터스는 피고에게 '2013. 6. 19. 원고에 대한 면접을 실시하였고, 원고가 실업급여 문제로 입사일을 2013. 6. 26.로 수정해줄 것을 요청하였으나 착오로 반영되지 않았다'는 내용의 경위서를 제출하였고, ㈜그랜드모터스 B은 피고로부터 참고인 조사를 받을 당시 '원고를 2013. 6. 26.자로 채용하려고 하였으나 사무실 이전날짜가 2013. 7. 2.이어서 원고에게 2013. 6. 24.부터 출근하여 사무실 이전작업을 도와달라고 부탁하였고, 이에 원고가 2013. 6. 24.부터 출근하였으며, 2013. 6. 25.경 근로계약을 체결하면서 계약기간을 2013. 6. 24.부터로 합의하였고, 2013. 6. 26. 원고로부터 실업급여 중복수급 문제로 입사일을 2013. 6. 26.로 변경하여 달라는 부탁을 받고 본사 C에게 요청한 사실이 있다'고 진술한 점, ⑤ 원고는 위와 같이 ㈜그랜드모터스에 실업급여 부정수급과 관련하여 입사일을 변경하여 달라는 요청을 한 사실이 있을 뿐, 피고의 부정수급 관련 조사가 개시되기 이전에 피고에게 자진신고를 한 사실은 없는 점, ⑥ 원고가 제출한 피고 소속 담당자와의 2013. 9. 26.자 통화내용 녹취록에 의 하더라도 피고 소속 담당자가 원고의 주장과 같이 2013. 6. 26.경 원고와 통화하면서 원고에게 실업급여 부정수급에 해당하지 않으려면 회사에 입사일을 변경하여 달라고 요청하라는 취지로 이야기한 부분을 찾을 수 없고, 오히려 입사일이 2013. 6. 24.이라면 부정조사 대상에 해당하고, 그 이후라면 부정조사 대상이 아니라는 사실을 고지한 것으로 보이는바, 이로써 원고가 2013. 6. 25. 실업인정신청 당시 ㈜그랜드모터스에 근로제공한 사실을 고지하지 아니한 것이 정당화된다거나 원고가 피고에게 사전에 부정수급 사실을 신고하였다고 보기는 어려운 점 등을 종합하면, 원고는 3차 실업인정일(2013. 6. 25.) 이전인 2013. 6. 24.자로 ㈜그랜드모터스에 입사하였음에도 피고에게 취업사실을 알리지 아니한 채 실업인정을 신청하여 3차 실업인정대상기간에 대한 구직급여를 지급받았음을 인정할 수 있고, 원고로서는 3차 실업인정신청 당시 입사일이 분명하지 아니하였다고 하더라도 ㈜그랜드모터스에 이틀간 근로제공을 한 사실은 당연히 고지하였어야 하는바, 달리 피고의 부정수급 관련 조사 개시 전까지 원고가 피고에게 자진신고한 사정도 엿볼 수 없는 이상, 이와 같은 전제에서 이루어진 피고의 이 사건 처분은 적법하다.

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.

The presiding judge, judge and assistant judge

judge-in-law

Judges Park Jong-won

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.