2017Nu76489. Restrictions on unemployment benefits, return orders, and additional collection dispositions

Revocation

A

The head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office Seoul East Site

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Gudan19647 decided September 19, 2017

November 30, 2017

December 14, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. On June 29, 2016, the Defendant’s decision to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits to the Plaintiff and to order the return of KRW 4,660,390, and to additionally collect KRW 3,937,220, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: (a) the portion of the first instance judgment No. 4 to No. 5 [No. 2. 2] was 1, 200, 200, 300,000,000 won and 100,000 won and 200,000 won and 20,000,000 won and 20,000,000 won and 3,000,000,000 won and 6,000,000 won and 6,000,000,000 won and 6,000,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 6,00,000,000 won and 6,00,000 won and 6,00,000 won and 6,00,000 won and 1,000,00.

Even based on each of the above statements made by the Plaintiff and F, it is recognized that the Plaintiff provided labor from around November 2015 in any form to her motherel from around November 2015. On the other hand, among the above statements made by the Plaintiff and F, the part concerning the time and frequency of the Plaintiff’s provision of labor in her motherelD, the details of labor offered and the details of money and valuables, etc. that the Plaintiff received from F, etc., are inconsistent with the Plaintiff and F, and it is difficult to believe that they are not consistent with the Plaintiff’s respective statements or F’s own statements. Furthermore, according to the mobile phone call content (No. 17 evidence) submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, most of the Plaintiff’s mobile phone calls sent from December 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s domicile was Gdong, which is the location of her motherel, rather than the Plaintiff’s domicile, and according to this, the Plaintiff or F, continued to offer labor from around 15, from around 2015.

2. 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and assistant judge;

Judges Park Jong-young

Judges Lee Jong-hwan