2016Guide244 244 Madada244, Order to restrict unemployment benefits and to return additional collection

A

The President of the Central Local Labor Agency

November 15, 2016

January 24, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On February 24, 2015, the Defendant revoked a decision to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits, to order return, and to additionally collect unemployment benefits against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, while working as B of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Office from February 2013, was concurrently engaged in the duties as an affiliated certified broker at the “D Real Estate Brokerage Office (hereinafter referred to as the “instant brokerage office”) operated by Nonparty C as a shooting.

B. On August 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of eligibility for unemployment benefits with the Defendant on the ground that he/she retired from the Nam-gu Office on June 30, 2013 at the expiration of the contract. Upon recognition of eligibility for unemployment benefits of KRW 150 days and KRW 34,992 for the fixed benefit payment days and KRW 4,618,910 for seven times from August 8, 2013 to December 25, 2013, the Plaintiff was paid the total amount of job-seeking benefits of KRW 4,618,910 for seven times. On February 24, 2015, the Defendant continuously provided labor to the instant brokerage office during the period of job-seeking benefits, even though the Plaintiff continued to be employed in the instant brokerage office during the period of job-seeking benefits, on the ground that the Plaintiff received unemployment benefits by concealing such fact and by filing an application for unemployment benefits by unlawful means (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review with an employment insurance examiner, but was dismissed on July 17, 2015, and again filed a request for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but was dismissed on December 8, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 20, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to jointly operate a licensed real estate agent office in the name of "E" in the store of a new apartment complex C and C after withdrawal from the office of Nam-gu, and prepared for the business start-up related thereto, and did not continuously provide labor at the instant brokerage office. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is based on misunderstanding of facts.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits by concealing such facts and applying for unemployment benefits in an unlawful manner, even though it did not meet the requirements for receiving job-seeking benefits, such as continuing to be employed at the instant brokerage office during the period of job-seeking benefits and providing labor, in light of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts, the statements in the evidence Nos. 7 through 19, and 21, and the witness C’s testimony,

1) From February 2013 to June 30, 2013, C operating the instant brokerage office, as affiliated affiliated licensed real estate agent from February 2, 2013 to June 30, 2013, paid KRW 700,000 per month and KRW 500,000 per month. From July 1, 2013 to January 2014, C agreed to divide the profits derived from deducting expenses from the expenses, and continued to work as affiliated licensed real estate agent of the instant brokerage office, and continued to perform his/her business as affiliated licensed real estate agent of the instant brokerage office, and even after considering the circumstances where dispute over E arising from joint investment and operation by C and the Plaintiff is punished, it is difficult to deem C’s above statement to be false in light of the various circumstances.

2) On March 17, 2014, after a dispute arises with respect to C and E, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content to C, and claimed food expenses, etc. during the work period from February 19, 2013 to January 3, 2014, on the premise that the Plaintiff worked at work.

3) Around September 2013, around November 2013, and around November 2013, F and G, a customer of the instant brokerage office, stated to the effect that the Plaintiff and C concurrently worked at the instant brokerage office, and that the Plaintiff provided real estate brokerage services, such as explanation related to the contract.

4) On June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the business of the instant brokerage office was suspended after the withdrawal from the Nam-gu Office: Provided, That the Plaintiff only prepared to start a business upon entering the instant brokerage office; however, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the E office on October 31, 2013 and started the business of opening the said office around December 16, 2013, it is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff, as a licensed real estate agent holding a licensed real estate agent’s license, prepared only for starting a business after attending the instant brokerage office from July 1, 2013.

5) In filing an application for unemployment recognition with the Defendant seven times, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was engaged in job-seeking activities for reemployment in ten business places, including H, I, and Dongcoa, but in light of the Plaintiff’s allegations as above and the situation where the Plaintiff and C jointly sought to open an E office, it is deemed to meet the requirements for receiving job-seeking benefits in form, and it is not deemed that the Plaintiff made active efforts for reemployment with the genuine intent of seeking job-seeking.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sickjin

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.