2015Guhap432 Order to return unemployment benefits and revocation of disposition of revocation of additional collection

A

The Commissioner of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office;

July 23, 2015

August 27, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On December 4, 2013, the Defendant revoked the restriction on the payment of unemployment benefits of KRW 13,849,780 against the Plaintiff, the order to return, and the disposition of additional collection.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 1, 2005 to May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff retired from office at the Busan National Academy of Sciences located in Busan National University, and thereafter, on June 12, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for recognition of unemployment benefits (hereinafter “instant application”) to the Defendant on June 12, 2012, and received payment of job-seeking benefits amounting to KRW 6,924,890 for total 210 days from June 19, 2012 to January 14, 2013 (i.e., job-seeking benefits amounting to KRW 32,976 KRW 210).

B. On June 12, 2012, the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s report on the illegal receipt of unemployment benefits and investigated the result, determined that the Plaintiff was employed in the “D coffee shop” located in Busan metropolitan Daegu, Busan. On November 21, 2013, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to submit his/her opinion before the disposition by notifying the Plaintiff that he/she would be subject to restrictions on the payment of unemployment benefits, an order for return, and an additional collection. After examining the data such as the confirmation of the facts submitted by the Plaintiff, E, etc., on December 4, 2013, the Defendant issued a restriction on the payment of unemployment benefits, an order for return, and an additional collection (the amount of unlawful receipt amount of KRW 6,924,890 and the amount of additional collection of KRW 6,924,890, and the amount of additional collection of KRW 13,849,780, hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review with an employment insurance examiner, but the decision of dismissal was rendered on June 12, 2014. In other words, on September 5, 2014, the Employment Insurance Review Committee filed a request for reexamination, but also rendered a decision of dismissal on October 22, 2014.

E. On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff received a notice of dismissal of the said request for reexamination and filed the instant lawsuit on February 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9, 10, 14, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

D coffee shop was operated by E, a plaintiff's seat since 2002, and the plaintiff was not an operator of the above coffee shop, and there is no fact that the plaintiff received money under any pretext, such as wages, etc. in return for providing labor or providing labor.

The instant disposition should be revoked because the Defendant’s mistake on the grounds for its disposition or erroneous application of the statute.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The aforementioned evidence and evidence set forth above 1 to 3, 10, 11, and 12 were found to have been admitted as above or above, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the Plaintiff’s testimony, part of the witness E, the result of the Plaintiff’s questioning, and the entire arguments were posted at least nine times from June 2012 to January 2013. ② The Plaintiff’s mobile phone number at the above coffee shop was indicated as the main phone number of the Plaintiff’s online service, and the Plaintiff’s act of receiving orders from the above coffee shop’s customers at least 1 to 20, and the Plaintiff’s act of receiving orders from the above coffee shop’s employees at least once during the 20th anniversary of the above fact that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to receive orders from the above coffee shop’s employees at least once, and the Plaintiff’s act of receiving orders from the above online bank account to 1 to 20, and the Plaintiff’s act of receiving orders from the above online bank account to 3 times.

2) Meanwhile, Article 104 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the scope of return of job-seeking benefits and the amount additionally collected for “the act that received unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means” shall be ordered to fully return such amount. Article 105(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the amount additionally collected shall be 100/100 of the amount of job-seeking benefits already received; however, the amount of additional collection may be reduced only when daily workers were employed at the time of final severance from employment or when they faithfully responded to investigations into misconduct and have promised to immediately pay the amount of unjust enrichment in writing; or the amount of additional collection may be exempted where the head of an employment security office considers that the living of the Plaintiff is significantly difficult. In this case, there is no circumstance to reduce or exempt the amount of additional collection for the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge, Kim Hong-il

Judges Lee Hong-hoon

Judges Kim Gi-sung

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.