2011Nu14175. Revocation of a decision to return unemployment benefits payment restrictions

A

The head of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap18117 Decided March 31, 2011

October 5, 2011

November 16, 2011

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition to suspend payment of unemployment benefits to the Plaintiff on October 7, 2010 is revoked. 3. The total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

On September 6, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits to the Defendant on September 20, 2010, and received recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits from the Defendant on September 20, 2010. However, on October 7, 2010, the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility, and thus, constitutes “a person who wishes to receive unemployment benefits fraudulently,” was subject to the suspension of payment of unemployment benefits under Article 61 of the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

According to Article 40(1)2, Article 43, and Article 61(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, job-seeking benefits shall be paid to an insured worker in a state of non-employment despite his/her intent and ability to work, but a person who intends to receive job-seeking benefits shall meet the requirements for receiving benefits from the head of an employment security office. In addition, Article 40(1)2, Article 43, and Article 61(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that a person who received

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the Plaintiff: (a) retired from office due to the bankruptcy of Company B, which it had worked on August 26, 2010; (b) applied for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits of this case to the Defendant on September 6, 2010; and (c) subsequently, as the Plaintiff succeeded to the Plaintiff’s labor relationship retroactively as of September 1, 2010 when acquiring and acquiring Company B and acquiring the Plaintiff’s labor relationship, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was deemed to work in C Co., Ltd. retroactively as of September 1, 2010; and even based on all other evidence submitted by the Defendant, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had been in employment at the time of applying for recognition of eligibility

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff filed a false application even though he did not meet the requirements for the supply and demand in the employment status at the time of the instant application is unlawful (the Defendant should have submitted an application to withdraw the application to receive job-seeking benefits, and if the employment relationship was succeeded retroactively as above, the Plaintiff failed to do so, and thus, constitutes a case where the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits by fraudulent or other unlawful means. However, this is not a legitimate ground for disposition, since the ground for the initial disposition that the instant application was filed by falsity and the basic factual relations cannot be deemed the same in spite of employment status, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for disposition. Furthermore, according to the evidence adopted earlier, the Plaintiff’s notification by telephone without attending the Mapo-si District Labor Agency, the unemployment recognition date, can not be accepted, and this part of the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted) on the ground that the Plaintiff was already employed.

Conclusion

Since the disposition of this case must be revoked in an unlawful manner, the plaintiff's claim seeking such disposition must be accepted for the reasons of its reasoning. However, since the judgment of the first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked and the disposition of

Constitution of the presiding judge, senior judge

Judges Noh Jeong-il

Judges Jeong Jae-ok

1) In order for the Plaintiff to receive job-seeking benefits, he/she must attend the Korea Employment and Labor Agency of the Central and Medium-Term Regional Employment and Labor Agency.

A person shall be appointed.