1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff, on November 30, 2015, retired from the Joint Shipping (State) on the ground that it applied for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits to the Defendant on December 24, 2015, and the Defendant recognized the eligibility for benefits of KRW 150,000 for the fixed benefit payment days and KRW 43,00 for the daily

B. From January 7, 2016 to May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the recognition of unemployment on a total of six occasions with the Defendant, and the Defendant, from December 31, 2015 to May 28, 2016, paid the Plaintiff KRW 6,450,000 in total, with the period subject to the recognition of unemployment as the period subject to the recognition of unemployment.

[This case’s unemployment benefits (hereinafter “instant unemployment benefits”) paid for a period subject to unemployment recognition from February 5, 2016 to March 3, 2016 (from March 3, 2016). (c)

On May 16, 2016, the Defendant, while staying in a foreign country from March 2, 2016 to March 6, 2016, filed an application for unemployment recognition on behalf of the Plaintiff on March 3, 2016, the unemployment recognition date of the instant unemployment benefits, and received unlawful payment of the instant unemployment benefits, and issued a disposition of restricting the payment and a return order (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D.

On July 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with an employment insurance examiner for the instant disposition, but the said request for review was dismissed. While the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, the said request for review was dismissed on November 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including additional evidence, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion did not comply with the unemployment recognition procedure, the Plaintiff did not claim unemployment benefits by unlawful means, such as being entitled to unemployment benefits and actually engaged in job-seeking activities during the period subject to unemployment recognition, or having no income generated.

Therefore, the instant disposition is accordingly.