(영문) 수원지방법원 2012.7.5. 선고 2012구합1878 판결

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 15, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 14, 15, and 16 by considering the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. On April 19, 201, in order to receive job-seeking benefits under the Employment Insurance Act, the Plaintiff: (a) retired from employment in the Bank of Korea; and (b) filed an application for recognition of the Defendant’s eligibility for employment insurance benefits; (c) received unemployment benefits from the Defendant for the fixed benefit payment days, KRW 210,000, and KRW 40,000 from April 1, 2011 to November 21, 201; and (d) received unemployment benefits 1,240,000 for the period from April 26, 2011 to May 26, 201 (from April 26, 201 to May 3, 201, KRW 320,000 for job-seeking benefits, and KRW 90,00 for the period from May 3, 200 for the period from May 26, 2011 to May 3, 200).

B. The Defendant, on May 12, 201 through 26 of the same month (hereinafter referred to as “C”), provided labor to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant issues period”), and rendered a false and fraudulent disposition on May 30, 201, stating that the Plaintiff did not provide labor during the period subject to the recognition of unemployment (hereinafter referred to as “instant application for recognition of unemployment”) from May 4, 201 to May 26 of the same month (hereinafter referred to as “period subject to the recognition of unemployment”), on the ground that job-seeking benefits were paid to the Plaintiff by fraud or other improper means pursuant to Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff prepared a labor contract after reporting an interview around May 10, 201 and providing C with labor from around that time. However, in the first time, the Plaintiff’s agreement was made to work for the first time from June 201 to June 27, 2011 due to the Plaintiff’s circumstances, as well as C’s issuance of a certificate of employment (Evidence A No. 4-2) to the Plaintiff as of May 27, 201, and entered the period of service as “the period of service from May 27, 2011 to June 30, 2011” and entered as “the period of service from May 27, 2011 to June 30, 2011,” and thus, the Plaintiff’s receipt of job-seeking benefits cannot be deemed as a case where the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits or other unlawful means.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) According to the facts stated in the evidence Nos. 9 and 10 as to the Plaintiff’s provision of labor to C during the key period of the instant case, the Plaintiff’s provision of labor to C is not only the Plaintiff but also the Plaintiff’s entry into the C employee Personnel Records Card of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff signed the confirmation on May 12, 201 on the said Personnel Records Card, the Plaintiff’s entry date on May 12, 201, and the monthly salary details of C in May 2011 as the Plaintiff’s entry date on May 12, 2011, and the amount of wages of May 2, 2011 as KRW 2,13,660, respectively. Accordingly, according to this, the Plaintiff’s provision of labor to C during the key period of the instant case.

Nevertheless, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s receipt of 60,000 won (=40,000 won X 15 days (the instant issue period) under the pretext of job-seeking benefits for the key period of the instant case by stating that no labor has been provided during the period subject to the recognition of unemployment of the instant case, including the instant issues period, constitutes a case where job-seeking benefits have been received by fraud or other improper means.

2) In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 4-2 and 3-2 of the above, although C is deemed to have stated the Plaintiff’s employment date or work commencement date on the Plaintiff’s employment certificate and the wage and salary income payment statement, it cannot be affected by the objective facts acknowledged above, that is, the Plaintiff’s employment service date or work commencement date during the issues of this case, and rather, the entry of the above employment certificate and the wage and salary income payment statement or the wage and salary income commencement date is false.

3) Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff falsely stated in the application for the recognition of unemployment of this case that the Plaintiff had not provided labor during the period subject to the recognition of unemployment of this case was due to C’s false employment certificate and the issuance and preparation of the wage and salary income payment statement, it constitutes “the payment of job-seeking benefits by false or other unlawful means” under Article 62(2) of the Employment Insurance Act, which constitutes joint and several liability of both the Plaintiff and C, the business owner, pursuant to Article 62(2) of the Employment Insurance Act, and does not constitute grounds for exemption.

D. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the Plaintiff, even though having provided labor to C during the key issues of this case, was falsely prepared and submitted a false application for unemployment recognition, and received job-seeking benefits by receiving KRW 600,000 as job-seeking benefits for the key issues of this case between the Plaintiff and then received job-seeking benefits by false or other unlawful means. Accordingly, the instant disposition taken by the Defendant pursuant to Articles 61 and 62 of the Employment Insurance Act is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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