logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.12.20 2017구단25079
실업급여 지급제한, 반환명령 및 추가징수결정처분 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 November 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance with the Defendant on November 11, 2013, on the ground that he/she retired from employment in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and received KRW 4,200,000 in total on five occasions including December 23, 2013 and January 20, 2014.

B. On December 23, 2013 and January 20, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits due to an unlawful act in violation of Article 61(1) and Article 62(1)3 of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 65 subparagraph 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), 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 ordered a branch of the Republic of Korea to file an application for unemployment recognition using the Internet instead of the application for unemployment recognition. On the other hand, on December 3, 2016, the Defendant issued an order to return KRW 10,000,000 and additional collection of job-seeking benefits (hereinafter the same shall apply).

[Reasons for Recognition] No. 1, No. 1, and No. 1 are written and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff committed an unlawful act in violation of Article 44(2)3 of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 65 subparag. 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, and Article 89(6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, since the Plaintiff, while staying in a foreign country, applied for recognition of unemployment directly using his/her own

Therefore, this case.

arrow