1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are significant in this court:

On January 31, 2006, after being notified of dismissal on January 31, 2006, the Plaintiff applied for unemployment benefits to the Defendant and applied for unemployment benefits of KRW 2,053,440 [2,320 won x 92 days (from February 8, 2006 to the same year).

5. The payment was received until October).

B. On March 29, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the allegation of unfair dismissal on March 29, 2006 that “the dismissal of the non-party company against the Plaintiff on January 31, 2006,” the non-party company immediately reinstated the Plaintiff to the original position, and paid the amount equivalent to the wages that the company could have received during the period of dismissal (hereinafter “the instant remedy order”), and the allegation of unfair labor practices was dismissed.

(Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission No. 2006, No. 106, No. 12). (C)

On May 15, 2006, the non-party company reinstated the Plaintiff according to the instant order for remedy, and on June 9, 2006, the Defendant rendered a decision to recover job-seeking benefits with the purport that “the job-seeking benefits already paid according to the reinstatement decision following the application for unfair dismissal” to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant order for recovery”).

On September 21, 2007, the Plaintiff did not return the above amount of job-seeking benefits, the Defendant issued a seizure disposition of the Plaintiff’s deposit claims of Han Bank (hereinafter “Attachment disposition”) and on February 24, 2014, each of the Plaintiff’s deposit claims of Han Bank, the National Bank, and the Korean Bank (hereinafter “Attachment Disposition”) were subject to attachment disposition (hereinafter “Attachment Disposition”).

E. On July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of invalidity of the instant recovery decision and filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the attachment disposition in 2007 and revocation of the attachment disposition in 2014 (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Gudan56611).