(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.6.12. 선고 2014구합51081 판결

1. The Defendant’s decision to return the erroneous unemployment benefits to the Plaintiff on February 14, 2013 is revoked. 2. The litigation cost is assessed against the Defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for employment of public officials in local medical service who work in the position of at least 20 hours per week, status non-exclusive contract positions, and was employed as a public official in charge of illegal parking and stopping control as a part-time contracting officer from April 1, 2007 to February 28, 201, the Plaintiff left his/her job on March 1, 201 because the contract was not concluded, while serving as a public official in charge of illegal parking and stopping control.

B. On April 29, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of eligibility for benefits under the Employment Insurance Act with the Defendant on the ground of the above severance from employment. On May 2, 2011, the Plaintiff recognized eligibility for employment insurance of KRW 31,104 for the daily amount of job-seeking benefits on May 2, 201, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 4,665,580 for 150 days from May 6, 201 to October 2, 2011 (hereinafter “instant determination of the amount of unemployment benefits”).

C. However, on February 14, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to return KRW 1,413,500 out of the job-seeking benefits already paid to the Plaintiff as indicated below pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Employment Insurance Act, on the ground that the contractual hours per day of the Plaintiff’s place of business prior to severance was 8 to 4 hours and 31,104 to 21,680.56 won, and the daily amount of job-seeking benefits was corrected from 31,104 to 21,680.56 won (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

A person shall be appointed.

D. On March 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with an employment insurance examiner seeking cancellation of the instant disposition. The employment insurance examiner dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition on June 8, 2013. On September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a petition for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, and the Employment Insurance Review Committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for reexamination on October 21, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Defendant is responsible for recognizing eligibility for benefits and determining the amount of unemployment benefits, even if the amount of benefits was erroneously paid during the process of determining the amount of unemployment benefits in this case, it is due to the Defendant’s negligence in the process of not properly ascertaining the details stated in the certificate of severance from employment regarding the Plaintiff, which was entirely submitted by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City. In this regard, even if the Plaintiff did not intervene in the Plaintiff’s fraudulent and unlawful means, it is harsh that the Defendant entirely assumes the Defendant’s responsibility for returning part of the unemployment benefits at the time to the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for twenty hours each week with different contractual work hours, and thus, in such a case, the contractual work hours are calculated per day in accordance with the Regulations on the Calculation of Basic Wage Amount (Enforcement, Sept. 25, 2012, No. 42 of the Regulations), 4,142 hours (i.e., x8 hours per month), and 28 days will be calculated. However, on March 2011, public officials in charge of Seoul Special Metropolitan City recognized the Plaintiff’s eligibility for the payment of unemployment benefits as 150 days, 31,104 won, 104 won, and 4,665, 105, and 208, 160,000 won, and 250,000 won (hereinafter “this case’s unemployment benefits certificate”). Based on this, the Defendant did not specifically state the Plaintiff’s eligibility for the payment of unemployment benefits to the Plaintiff.

2) As above, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City discovered the fact that the daily fixed working hours were mistakenly calculated on the certificate of severance from employment with respect to the Plaintiff, and around May 2012, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that the daily fixed working hours were corrected from eight to four hours, and accordingly, the daily fixed working hours of the Plaintiff were corrected from thirty one thousand to sixty hours.

3) On June 4, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision ordering the Plaintiff to return excessive job-seeking benefits amounting to KRW 1,413,500 as the daily amount of job-seeking benefits was corrected. Upon receiving an objection from the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff did not receive a notice of the decision, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the scheduled return of re-disposition upon ex officio revocation of the said decision.

4) On February 14, 2013, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to return KRW 1,413,500 to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Employment Insurance Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A) Relevant legal principles

In full view of the content and purport of Article 62 of the Employment Insurance Act, and the unique characteristics of the revocation of beneficial administrative dispositions on social security administration, when collecting the amount equivalent to the amount of unemployment benefits erroneously paid from the party who received the unemployment benefits pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Employment Insurance Act, the following circumstances are examined: (a) whether the party was responsible for the payment of the unemployment benefits by intention or gross negligence; (b) whether the amount of the unemployment benefits erroneously paid could be easily recovered; and (c) the details and degree of disadvantages suffered by the party due to the specific contents and disposition necessary for the public interest to be achieved through the collection of the amount equivalent to the amount of the unemployment benefits erroneously paid; and (b) whether the amount equivalent to the amount of the unemployment benefits paid is necessary for the public interest to be disposed of

After comparing and comparing disadvantages, only where it is strong enough to justify disadvantages suffered by the parties in need of public interest, a disposition that collects an amount equivalent to the amount of insurance benefits paid erroneously from the party who received unemployment benefits should be taken (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du31697, Apr. 10, 201).

B) Determination

Article 62 (3) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the head of an employment security office may collect the amount of job-seeking benefits paid erroneously to a current or former eligible beneficiary, if any," and the above provision provides that "the person who maintains the eligibility for benefits or loses the eligibility for benefits in the past, in addition to the case of receiving unemployment benefits by false or other unlawful means prescribed in Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act, shall be deemed a ground provision for the disposition of collection of old house benefits erroneously or erroneously paid to the former eligible beneficiary. As seen earlier, the Defendant paid excessive job-seeking benefits to the Plaintiff by mistake or occupational negligence in calculating the daily amount of benefits, which is the basis for calculating job-seeking benefits, as seen earlier, such payment constitutes Article 62 (3)

However, in full view of the following circumstances, based on the above legal principles, comprehensively on the foregoing facts, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Defendant’s mistake in the process of determining the amount of unemployment benefits in this case, even if there was an error in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Defendant, it is merely limited to the Defendant’s internal circumstances or occupational negligence, and it cannot be deemed that there was a cause attributable to intention or gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, considering all the circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the argument in this case, including the fact that the instant disposition was taken after about two years from the determination of the amount of unemployment benefits in this case, the disposition of collecting the amount equivalent to the amount of unemployment benefits paid erroneously cannot be deemed to exceed the Plaintiff’s trust in light of the public interest need to be imposed

① The employment insurance system is an active employment security system aimed at preventing unemployment, promoting employment, developing and improving workers’ vocational skills through the enforcement of employment insurance, strengthening the State’s vocational guidance and job placement services, and facilitating the livelihood stability and job-seeking activities of workers by providing unemployment benefits and facilitating their job-seeking activities, and belongs to social security rights. The public interest intending to be achieved through the cancellation of a beneficial administrative disposition in an administrative area that provides social security benefits is essentially a financial interest formed through the employer’s insurance premium paid by the employer and the national treasury’s burden. On the other hand, the beneficiary’s infringement of private interest, such as the protection of trust and the stability of legal life, etc. by the cancellation of a beneficial administrative disposition, unless there is any intentional or gross negligence on the part of the beneficiary with respect to defects existing in the beneficial administrative disposition, it cannot be readily concluded that the beneficiary is more important or larger than that of the beneficiary’s need for public interest.

② Article 7(3) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that “The Minister of Employment and Labor, upon receipt of the certificate of severance from employment pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, shall confirm the unit period of insured employment, reason for severance, and details of wage payment.” However, in the process of determining the amount of unemployment benefits in this case, the Defendant determined the amount of unemployment benefits in this case only based on the certificate of severance, which was mistakenly calculated and mistakenly calculated eight hours, even though the Plaintiff’s contractual working hours were four hours per day, and did not require all the data, such as the Plaintiff’s labor contract or wage statement.

③ The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the determination of the instant unemployment benefits, and issued the contractor’s fixed number of cards, but only stated only the period subject to recognition of unemployment and the amount of payment, and did not appear to have any grounds to be determined accordingly, but did not notify the Plaintiff of the aforementioned grounds. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff could have easily known that there was a problem in calculating the instant unemployment benefits amount.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.