2013Guhap21908 Other (General Administration)

A

The Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency Head of the Seoul Regional Labor Office

November 21, 2013

December 19, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of restricting the payment of job-seeking benefits against the Plaintiff on May 31, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a daily employed worker at the construction site B C, worked for 16, 17, 19, 20, 23 through 26, and 28 through 30 days during April 2013 and worked for 11 days in total.

B. On May 13, 2013, from April 13 to May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a written confirmation of the number of working days (Evidence 5) to the Defendant on May 13, 2013. The Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a written confirmation of the number of working days on May 13, 2013 (Evidence 5). The Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a written application for recognition of the eligibility for benefits as follows: (a) whether the number of working days, including weekly leave, monthly leave, etc., for the period of one month prior to the date of application for the eligibility for benefits (only if the Plaintiff was a daily worker at the time of the final departure from employment) is less than nine (9) days or nine (9) days; and (b) whether the number of working days, including weekly leave, monthly leave, etc., for one month prior to the date of application for the eligibility for benefits (including a person who has retired from employment as a daily worker) is less than ten (10) days?

D. On May 31, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition imposing restrictions on the payment of job-seeking benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 61 of the Employment Insurance Act on the ground that the Plaintiff falsely reported the number of working days during one month prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 2, 4 through 6, 8, 17 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On April 13, 2013, the Plaintiff retired from D Co., Ltd., and worked temporarily for 11 days before the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits. On May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff erroneously stated in the application for recognition of eligibility for benefits that the number of working days does not exceed 9 days during the one-month period prior to the date of application for recognition of eligibility for benefits, and stated that, on May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff’s payment of wages was made on the Plaintiff’s passbook, and that the number of working days was less than 9 days at the Defendant’s office was erroneous. Accordingly, the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s mistake as lost and corrected the Plaintiff’s entry, and made the instant disposition. Although the Plaintiff voluntarily reported and corrected the entry of mistake, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is too serious measure.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 40 (1) 5 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the number of working days during the one-month period prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits shall be less than 10 days for daily workers at the time of the final departure from employment" as the requirement for the supply of job-seeking benefits. According to the aforementioned circumstances, even though the Plaintiff worked for a total of 11 days in April 201, 2013 at B Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff was finally dismissed from employment on April 12, 2013, and the Plaintiff submitted a written confirmation of working days between April 13, 2013 and 5, and the total number of working days on April 13, 2013 and an application for recognition of the recipient, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful pursuant to Article 61 (1) of the Employment Insurance Act.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant recognized the plaintiff as a 'actual and properly treated the plaintiff,' and even if the plaintiff voluntarily reported her mistake to the defendant, the disposition of this case is not unlawful due to such circumstance.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall be appointed by a judge.

Judge Cham Name

Judges' Branch Office Counter

A person shall be appointed.