logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.02.07 2017구단30736
실업급여 지급 제한, 반환명령 및 추가징수처분 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 31, 2013, the Plaintiff received an application for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits under the High Employment Insurance Act from the Defendant on January 17, 2014 on the ground that he/she retired from employment in the Strategy and Finance Bank, and received payment of KRW 8,400,000 (from January 4, 2014 to August 21, 2014) for the total amount of job-seeking benefits, which was received from the Defendant on February 7, 2014, KRW 40,000, from February 10, 2014 to August 22, 2014.

B. On April 4, 2014, May 30, 2014, and July 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received job-seeking benefits in violation of Article 44(2)3 of the Employment Insurance Act; (b) Article 65 subparag. 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27738, Dec. 30, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) Article 89(6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 176, Dec. 30, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (d) ordered the Plaintiff to file an application for job-seeking benefits using the Internet instead; and (d) ordered the Plaintiff to return the amount of job-seeking benefits paid to the Plaintiff on December 19, 2016; and (e) ordered the Plaintiff to return the amount of job-seeking benefits paid to the Plaintiff at the same time.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not only that the Defendant has been recognizing unemployment against the Plaintiff without any particular objection, but rather, the Defendant’s working-level officer merely informed the Defendant that he can receive job-seeking benefits only for job-seeking activities in the Republic of Korea.

arrow