2014Nu12299. Restriction on the payment of unemployment benefits, order to return, and additional collection disposition

SectorCancellation.

A

Daejeon Head of Local Employment and Labor Agency

Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Guhap100909 Decided October 2, 2014

March 5, 2015

March 26, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The decision of the Defendant rendered on June 24, 2013 that the payment restriction of unemployment benefits, the return order, and the additional collection disposition against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff served as a teacher ( professor) belonging to the B University and retired on August 31, 2012, and around that time, the Plaintiff was commissioned as a part-time lecturer of the B University in February 2012 and was in charge of “C”.

B. Around December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted an application for recognition of eligibility for benefits under the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant application”) to the Defendant on January 7, 2013, after having undergone a sexual treatment for the students in the above veterinary industry. The Plaintiff indicated that the instant application was “in the employment column adjacent to the present employment status” as “the final name of the instant draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of “B University and Industry Cooperation Foundation,” and “the date of departure from the place of business where the instant branch of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft of draft.”

D. On June 24, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition to restrict the payment of job-seeking benefits, to order the return of job-seeking benefits of 1440,000 won received, and to additionally collect the same amount, on the ground that “the Plaintiff was employed as a part-time lecturer at the pertinent university at the time of the submission of the instant application, and did not meet the eligibility for job-seeking benefits, even though it was falsely reported as an unemployment status,” on the ground that “the Plaintiff was paid job-seeking benefits”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9.10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) it is difficult to see the relevant part of the judgment that the Plaintiff asserted in the trial; and (b) it is also difficult to see that the Defendant’s exercise of the right to additionally collect job-seeking benefits, other than the return order of job-seeking benefits, constitutes deviation or abuse of discretionary power, because it is a excessive sanction that the Defendant’s exercise of the right to additionally collect additional duties, other than the return order of job-seeking benefits, is excessive compared to the degree of Plaintiff’s misconduct, and it is also difficult to see that it constitutes deviation or abuse of discretionary power. Therefore, this Court’s reasoning is identical to the ground for the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

B University filed a report after the expiration of the contract period on the appointment of the Plaintiff as a part-time lecturer in February 2012, and the Plaintiff made a false statement to the Defendant’s employee in charge of working as a part-time lecturer in February 2012, and the Plaintiff made a false statement to the Plaintiff as stated in the computer network. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not appear on the date of acquisition of insured status regarding the appointment of part-time lecturer in February 2012 from the employment insurance computer network at the time of the submission of the instant application, and the employees in charge are also subject to administrative guidance to enter the date of acquisition of insured status on August 31, 2012 based on the computer network, and there is a high possibility that he/she would not be an employee of the same part-time lecturer. In light of the above, there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the Plaintiff’s negligence of duty.

(2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that there was a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff to prepare the instant application in a false manner.

① Regardless of whether the Plaintiff’s report on the acquisition of insured status was delayed, the Plaintiff could enter the instant application in the name of the workplace and whether the Plaintiff was employed as a part-time lecturer of the second semester 2012 as of the end of the date of the most recent departure from employment, and thus, it is difficult to see the Plaintiff’s false statement in the instant application due to the Plaintiff’s delay report at B University.

② The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone revealed that the Plaintiff had served as a part-time lecturer in the second semester 2012 to the Defendant’s staff, but it is difficult to recognize that the relevant employee neglected such circumstances and gave the Plaintiff erroneous guidance so that the Plaintiff could enter the final date of his/her employment as stated in the computer network on August 31, 2012.

(3) It is difficult to deem that there exists any other ground to believe that the Plaintiff was not an employee of the same part-time lecturer.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall receive the award of merit;

Judges Kim Gin-jin

Judges, Superintendent of the National Assembly

1) The instant disposition date is indicated as “A’s evidence No. 4” and as “B’s evidence No. 4, June 17, 2013,” respectively, and the judgment date of the first instance court is written.

The disposition of this case was made on June 24, 2013 according to a correction statement of the purport of appeal at the date of pleading of the plaintiff's agent and at the date of pleading of the appeal.

shall be deemed to have been.