2015Guhap845 Order to restrict unemployment benefits and to return, and revocation of additional collection and disposition

A

The Administrator of Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency

July 2, 2015

July 23, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On March 17, 2014, the Defendant revoked a decision to restrict the payment of unemployment benefits, to order return, and to additionally collect unemployment benefits against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for unemployment benefits with the Defendant for unemployment benefits on the ground that he/she worked in the “AB” and retired on September 13, 2013, and received 3,51,060 won in total for job-seeking benefits for 99 days from October 2, 2013 to January 8, 2014, for recognition of eligibility for benefits of KRW 180 days for the fixed benefit payment days and 3,51,060 in total from the Defendant.

B. On March 17, 2014, the Defendant was informed of the Plaintiff’s illegal receipt of unemployment benefits against the Plaintiff and investigated the Plaintiff’s representative director, C, etc., and determined that the Plaintiff was falsely reported to be retired to receive unemployment benefits in collusion with the business owner even if the Plaintiff continued to serve in the Dispute Settlement BankB, and that the Plaintiff was subject to the restriction on payment of unemployment benefits, the return order, and the disposition of additional collection (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request with an employment insurance examiner for review, but the request for review was dismissed on August 8, 2014, and the request for review was again filed with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but the request for review was dismissed on December 3, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was merely engaged in job-seeking activities such as preparing a resume using the computer, etc. in the B office, and did not actually have worked in the dispute resolution companyB, and the disposition of this case otherwise determined is unlawful in that it erred by mistake of facts. In addition, considering the fact that unemployment rate reaches 20 to 30% and that it is difficult for the Plaintiff, who is a female, to be employed more, the instant disposition is unfair

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, which are recognized by the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the Plaintiff appears to have reported to be retired to receive unemployment benefits in collusion with the business owner even though he/she continued to serve in the Dispute Settlement BankB. This constitutes “the person who received unemployment benefits by fraud or other wrongful means” as stipulated in Article 61(1) main sentence of the Employment Insurance Act stipulating restrictions on the payment of unemployment benefits due to unlawful acts, and Article 62(1) of the same Act stipulating the order to return unemployment benefits due to unlawful acts, and thus, the instant disposition is just and does not constitute any unlawful disposition.

① On August 19, 2014, the Busan District Court submitted a false employment insurance loss report to the Defendant that he/she continued to account, account, and work in the field with the Plaintiff from July 1, 2008 to January 14, 2014. However, on September 25, 2013 and 2013, he/she submitted a false employment insurance loss report to the Defendant that he/she was dismissed on September 13, 2013 and retired on September 13, 2013, and received KRW 3,51,060 in total as unemployment benefits from October 16 to January 8, 2014, and the summary order (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Da13698) of a fine of KRW 2 million became final and conclusive on August 30, 2014.

② On January 24, 2014, when the Plaintiff was under an investigation related to the instant case, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted to the Defendant a written confirmation of severance from employment to receive unemployment benefits due to the impossibility of the Defendant’s failure to receive unemployment benefits, and submitted a written statement of opinion (Evidence B No. 5) to the effect that “The Plaintiff continued to work until January 24, 2014,” and that “B representative director C of the LAB and the Defendant continued to work until January 24, 2014.”

③ It stated to the effect that “the information provider, who is an employee of the Bank of Korea, will continue to work in the company as of January 14, 2014, and that “the Plaintiff would have received unemployment benefits by making a disguised withdrawal by the president on the ground that the Plaintiff has not been paid benefits.”

④ Article 104 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act provides that “the scope of return of job-seeking benefits and the amount additionally collected” for “the act of receiving unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means shall be ordered to fully return such amount.” Article 105(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the amount additionally collected shall be 100/100 of the amount of job-seeking benefits that was paid, and that the amount of additional collection may be reduced only when a daily worker was employed at the time of the most recent severance from employment or a person who faithfully responded to an investigation into misconduct, and that the amount of additional collection may be exempted in cases where a person files a report, etc. on misconduct before investigating the person who committed the misconduct or his/her place of business.”

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Kim Hong-il

Judges Lee Hong-hoon

Judges Kim Gi-sung

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.