2012Guhap3108 Order for the Prohibition of Payment of Unemployment Benefits, Order for Return, and Revocation of Order for Additional Collection

A

The head of the following mountainous districts of the Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office

April 10, 2013

May 8, 2013

1. The Defendant’s disposition of restricting unemployment benefits payment, ordering return, and making a decision of additionally collecting unemployment benefits that the Plaintiff rendered on October 4, 201 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 23, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) stated that the number of working days during one month prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance (from November 23, 2009 to December 22, 2009) is less than 10 days; (b) recognized eligibility for benefits from the Defendant; and (c) received job-seeking benefits 2,592,000 won for the total 90 days from December 30 to March 29, 2010. On October 4, 2011, the Defendant issued a request for review to the lower Committee for review on the ground that the Plaintiff’s number of working days during one month prior to the date of applying for eligibility for benefits was less than 11 days; (d) denied the Plaintiff’s request for review on the ground that the Plaintiff received a reduction of eligibility for benefits by fraudulent or other unlawful means; and (e) subsequently, the Plaintiff issued a request for review on the amount of benefits remaining after 20 days prior to the date of applying for eligibility for benefits.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant issued the disposition of this case on the ground that the plaintiff worked in the 11th day from November 23, 2009 to December 3, 2009 at the site of "construction of a chip and bamboo forest business site" and "Cmiddle School Library Extension Corporation" operated in the site of "B" corporation (hereinafter referred to as "B") and "Cmiddle School Library Extension Corporation" and the working days do not constitute less than 10 days during the 1 month prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits. However, the disposition of this case was unlawful since the plaintiff did not work in the "C Middle School Library Extension Corporation" site (hereinafter referred to as "the site of this case") from November 26, 2009 to December 29 of the same month (hereinafter referred to as "the period of this case").

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. A judgment or an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition has the burden of proof as to whether the pertinent disposition is lawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du12937, Jan. 12, 2007). In the instant case, the Defendant bears the burden of proving that the Plaintiff applied for job-seeking benefits for less than 10 days even though the Plaintiff worked for not less than 10 days in the month prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for benefits, and thus, the Defendant bears the burden of proving that the Plaintiff’s working days for not less than 10 days in the month prior to the date of applying

In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s daily work status of the Plaintiff from November 26, 2009 to December 29 of the same month, and from November 30, 2009 to December 3, 2009, as well as from November 30, 2009 to “new construction works of marju and bamboo office”, there is no dispute between the parties concerned, and comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the Plaintiff indicated the Plaintiff’s daily work status of the Plaintiff as having worked in the instant field from November 26, 2009 to December 29 of the same month, and the Plaintiff received KRW 4,00,00 from D having worked for daily work together with the Plaintiff at the construction site at which B was implemented.

However, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 11 and 12 (including a Serial number) are as follows. ① The main ground for the disposition of this case is the fact that the plaintiff was registered as a daily worker of the plaintiff during the instant period, and the daily worker of the above daily worker is deemed to have been prepared on the basis of the contents reported in B. B. From November 23, 2009 to November 25, 2009, and from November 30, 2009 to December 3, 2009, the plaintiff did not always submit to the plaintiff's report of this case for the period of 20 days before the date of application for the new work of this case. ② The defendant did not know that the plaintiff had been working on the site of this case for the period of 10 days before the plaintiff's new work and 20 days from the date of application for the approval of 20 days from the date of the plaintiff's new work.

Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff had worked for at least ten days during one month prior to the date of applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the disposition of this case shall be revoked in an unlawful manner, so the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The Chief Judge of the Korean Tribunal

Judges Cho Soo-soo

Judges Cha Sung-sung

A person shall be appointed.