(영문) 대전고등법원 2016.6.9. 선고 2015누13947 판결

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The decision that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on May 2, 2014, to restrict payment of unemployment benefits, to order return, and to additionally collect additional collection shall be revoked

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: "No. 1, 2015." No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 2015. 5. 1, 2015. ," and "no. 4. 21," and "no. 1, 2015. 4. 2" are added later (However, such circumstance alone does not make it impossible to prove that there is any justifiable reason for the plaintiff's failure to report employment, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant's employee's assistance in the creative publication is not recognized as job-seeking activities, and there is no evidence for the defendant's employee's answer)," and the following judgment is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as follows, they are cited

2. The decision on addition (the decision on the plaintiff's assertion of addition to the trial)

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was aware that it does not constitute a “work” provision under the duty to report, and helps the Defendant’s unemployment benefits manager in charge of creating a newspaper with no remuneration. Although the Plaintiff talked about the circumstances, it was not a body in the column of the “work provision” due to the Defendant’s failure to receive guidance on the “work provision” column of the application for unemployment recognition even though he did not put the said “work provision.” Therefore, even if the Plaintiff falls under a person who received job-seeking benefits by unlawful means, the part of the disposition for additional collection in the instant case is unjust.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized based on the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, even if considering the aforementioned circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, the additional collection disposition among the instant disposition cannot be deemed to be excessively harsh to the Plaintiff as it deviates from and abused discretion, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

① Job-seeking benefits under the Employment Insurance Act are paid when the insured, who has retired from employment, is unable to find a job despite his/her intent and ability to work, and is aimed at stabilizing the livelihood of workers, etc. and promoting their job-seeking activities, thereby contributing to the economic and social development. In light of such legislative purpose, it is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of sanctions against violations by strict means.

(2) The defendant shall comply with Article 62 (1) of the Employment Insurance Act and the main sentence of Article 105 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

Additional collection of an amount equivalent to 100/100 of job-seeking benefits. It is difficult to view that the criteria for disposition prescribed by the provision of the above Enforcement Rule does not conform to the Constitution or laws, or that subsequent additional collection disposition is considerably unfair. In the Plaintiff’s case, the grounds for mitigation under the proviso of Article 105(1) of the Employment Insurance Act do not seem to have been included.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.