(영문) 부산지방법원 2012.11.8. 선고 2012구합2055 판결

On April 18, 2011, the Defendant revoked a decision to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits, to order return, and to additionally collect unemployment benefits against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

According to Article 87(1) and (2) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 11274, Feb. 1, 2012); a person who has an objection to a disposition on unemployment benefits may file a request for review with an examiner under Article 89; and a person who is dissatisfied with such decision may file a request for review with the Board of Review under Article 9; a request for review shall be filed within 90 days from the date the decision on the request for review is known and within 90 days from the date the decision on the request for review is known; and pursuant to Article 104(1) of the same Act and Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, an adjudication on the request for review shall be deemed an adjudication on an administrative appeal in applying Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and a lawsuit for cancellation shall be filed within 90 days from the date the person becomes aware of the disposition, etc., but if the request for administrative appeal is filed, the period shall be counted from the date the original copy of

In full view of the relevant provisions as seen earlier, a litigation for revocation shall be instituted within 90 days from the date when the relevant administrative disposition becomes known when the method of immediately filing a litigation for revocation is selected, and when the method of filing a lawsuit for examination and reexamination is selected, a litigation for revocation of a disposition shall be filed or a petition for reexamination shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the decision of revocation is known, and if a petition for reexamination is filed, a litigation for revocation shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the written ruling of reexamination is served. Therefore, a litigation for revocation shall be instituted within 90 days from the date when a written ruling on a petition for reexamination is served after a ruling on an unlawful request for reexamination is rendered within 90 days from the date when the written ruling on the request for reexamination becomes known (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du18786, Nov. 24, 2011).

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 13, Eul evidence Nos. 13 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11, the defendant, on April 18, 2011, filed a decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claim on August 2, 201, on the ground that the plaintiff did not report labor relations for at least 10 days in the month prior to the date of application for eligibility for benefits and received job-seeking benefits by unlawful means, and thus, returned job-seeking benefits amounting to KRW 4,550,40,80, and issued a decision to restrict the payment of additional collection amounting to KRW 4,780,80 (hereinafter referred to as "disposition in this case"). The plaintiff filed a request for review on the disposition in this case with the employment insurance examiner dismissed the plaintiff's claim on August 4, 2011. The plaintiff's request for review on the ground that the plaintiff's request for review was unlawful on December 16, 201, 2018.

Therefore, the plaintiff's petition for reexamination is unlawful as it is filed 90 days from the date when the decision of the employment insurance examiner becomes known, and the lawsuit of this case filed after the decision of the above petition for reexamination is made is also unlawful as it has been filed with the lapse of the filing period under the Employment Insurance Act and the Administrative Litigation Act.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.