1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a corporation that provides human resources and arranges employment, and the plaintiff has been placed with a job placement offered by the defendant at B around 2012.

B. In light of the details of the Plaintiff’s purchase of employment insurance, the Plaintiff was employed as a part-time at the H work site in March 2014, at the construction site of the long-term housing in April 2014, at the construction site of the long-term housing in April 2014, at the F site in April 2014, at the construction site of the resolution committee for the settlement of disputes in April 2014, at the construction site of the new constitutional committee for the settlement of disputes in April 2014, at the construction site of the Busan Metropolitan Signals Construction in April 2014, and at the construction site of the new Hun-Ga in November 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the Plaintiff did not have worked as a daily worker as the details of purchase of the above employment insurance, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant forged a document that the Plaintiff was employed on a daily basis, such as the details of purchase of the above employment insurance by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and that due to this, it was obvious that the Plaintiff would have been refunded the amount of KRW 8,400,000,000,000 for the amount of unemployment benefits exceeding KRW 1.2 million per month due to the illegal receipt of unemployment benefits, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for the tort and damages for delay.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant reported the purchase of employment insurance and industrial accident insurance by stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and that the Plaintiff incurred property damage of KRW 8,400,000 to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.