1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 10, 2017, after being recommended at B on March 20, 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 2,88,200 for 62-day job-seeking benefits (excluding two days of daily work) from November 17, 2017 to January 19, 2017, by applying for recognition of eligibility for unemployment benefits to the Defendant. The Plaintiff received KRW 2,88,200 for 62-day job-seeking benefits from November 17, 2017 to January 19, 2017.

B. Upon filing an application for the recognition of unemployment on December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff reported that he/she worked for two days among the two-day period from November 25, 2017 to December 22, 2017 (job-seeking benefits received during the aforementioned period are KRW 1,304,350), which is the period subject to the recognition of unemployment. However, the Defendant confirmed the Plaintiff’s supply of and demand for job-seeking benefits £« KRW 2,515,530,000,000 on December 22, 2017 through an investigation 20,000,000 from December 23, 2017 to January 19, 2018 (the job-seeking benefits received during the said period are KRW 1,211,180,000) without filing a report on work day nine days at all.

C. Accordingly, on February 28, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff on November 25, 2017 to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits from November 25, 2017 to December 22, 2017, and to suspend the payment of unemployment benefits as of January 19, 2018, and to return job-seeking benefits 2,515,530 (amounting to KRW 838,500 paid during the period of unemployment recognition and refunds due to restriction on payment, KRW 1,67,030) paid during the period of unemployment recognition (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(In the initial notice of the disposition, the additional collection of 419,250 won shall be included, but the part of the disposition was excluded from this disposition). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Although the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had been employed during the period of job-seeking benefits and received wages, it was found that some of the Plaintiff had omitted reports. However, both the Plaintiff and his spouse do not have good health due to old age, and thus, it is difficult to find a job.