1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, while working as B of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Office from February 2013, was affiliated with the real estate brokerage office operated by Nonparty C (hereinafter “instant brokerage office”) in the same manner as a real estate agent affiliated with the same day.

B. On August 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of eligibility for unemployment benefits with the Defendant on the ground that he/she retired from the Nam-gu Office on June 30, 2013 at the expiration of the contract. Upon recognition of eligibility for benefits of KRW 150 days for the fixed benefit payment days and KRW 34,992 for daily amount of job-seeking benefits, the Plaintiff received KRW 4,618,910 in total on seven occasions from August 16, 2013 to December 25, 2013.

C. On February 24, 2015, the Defendant continued to be employed in the instant brokerage office during the benefit period and provided labor, and thus, failed to meet the eligibility requirements for job-seeking benefits. However, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was paid job-seeking benefits by hiding such fact and filing an application for unemployment benefits, the Defendant issued a decision to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits, to return job-seeking benefits amounting to KRW 4,618,910, and to additionally collect an amount equivalent to the same amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with an employment insurance examiner for the instant disposition, but was dismissed on July 17, 2015, and again filed a request for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but was dismissed on December 8, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 20, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she agreed to jointly operate a licensed real estate agent's office in the name of "E" in the business establishment of a new apartment complex C and the trade name of "E" after withdrawal from the office of Dongdaemun-gu Office, and prepared for related business start-up. There was no continuous provision of labor at the instant brokerage office

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is based on mistake of facts.