2013Nu 56. Order to restrict and return unemployment benefits and decision to additionally collect them.

A

The President of the Central Local Labor Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu16833 Decided October 18, 2012

August 28, 2013

October 2, 2013

1. The action for retrial shall be dismissed;

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

The decision of retrial and the decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The decision of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") on March 23, 201 to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits and to order the return of unemployment benefits and to additionally collect them shall be revoked on March 23, 2011.

1. Determination of the original judgment

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant against the Incheon District Court 2012Guhap687, which sought revocation of the decision on the restriction of payment of unemployment benefits, return order, and additional collection order, such as the purport of the instant claim. On May 18, 2012, the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered, and the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal was rendered on October 18, 2012 at the appellate court (No. 2012Nu16833) and the judgment became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s appeal on February 15, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] The substantial fact in this Court

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a retrial suit

A. The plaintiff's assertion

There are grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act because the subject case is based on forged evidence (which is based on whether or not to pay employment stabilization subsidies, statement of labor cost, and application for recognition of unemployment).

B. Determination

If a suit for retrial is to be instituted on the ground that a document or any other article used as evidence of a judgment has been forged or altered, that is, a cause for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, is “when a document or any other article used as evidence of the judgment has been forged or altered,” it should be the time when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence cannot be rendered on

However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff’s forgery or alteration of evidence alleged in the instant case constitutes a final conviction or a fine for negligence, or a case where it is impossible to obtain a final conviction for reasons other than lack of evidence. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for retrial is unlawful

3. Conclusion

The action for retrial shall be dismissed.

The presiding judge, senior judge and senior judge

Judges Noh Jeong-il

Judges Jeong Jae-ok