2014Nu49202 Revocation of Disposition of Acquisition of Qualification as Employment Insurance Insured

A

The Head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office Seoul Gangnam District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap16241 Decided February 6, 2014

April 9, 2015

April 30, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition to suspend payment of unemployment benefits and to return unemployment benefits to the plaintiff on May 20, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial revisions or additions as follows. Thus, the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

A. Under the 6th page, the "Evidence Nos. 7, 11, and 12 (including various numbers of Evidence No. 11)" shall be written by the "Evidence Nos. 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 19 (including various numbers of evidence No. 11, 19)" of Category 1. (b) The 7th page "no evidence exists," and on the other hand, according to the statements No. 13 submitted by the plaintiff as evidence of the fact that the plaintiff received benefits from Category 13, according to the records of Evidence No. 13, 2008 to October 30, 2011.

8.2. In light of the fact that C has remitted money to the Plaintiff several times until June 2, 201, even though it is recognized that the amount was not specified up to KRW 32 million, and the time of remittance is also irregular (in particular, there is no remittance details from February 2010 to April 2010 and July 2010 during the period when the Plaintiff worked in the legal office of this case). The remittance of KRW 700,000 for the monthly salary alleged by the Plaintiff was only once on June 22, 2011, the testimony of the witness D at the trial, which appears to be consistent with the fact that the Plaintiff received money from C as payment for a certain amount of money from C, is difficult to believe that the testimony of the witness D is, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received monthly salary from C, and no other evidence exists to support that the Plaintiff was paid for the payment for a certain amount of money from C, shall be deleted.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The assistant judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Hatho

Judges Kim Gin-han