[1] The purport of Article 35-4(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act

[2] The meaning of "a bounty granted during the payment restriction period" under Article 35-4 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, and whether the right to claim the payment before the payment restriction period is also included (negative)

[1] Article 35-4 (1) (see current Article 56 (1)) and (2) (see current Article 56 (2)) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2030, Oct. 17, 2007) / [2] Article 35-4 (1) (see current Article 56 (1)) and (2) (see current Article 56 (2)) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2030, Oct. 17, 2007)

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Head of Daegu Regional Labor Administration Office

Daegu High Court Decision 2008Nu1345 decided April 10, 2009

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The appeal and the grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s appeal

The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, since the plaintiff filed a petition of appeal, but did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal and did not submit the grounds of appeal within the statutory period.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

Unlike the purpose of restoring the original state by falsely or otherwise wrongfully applying for new employment promotion subsidy, etc. under Article 35-4(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 2030, Oct. 17, 2007) or by other unlawful means, it is reasonable to view that Article 35-4(2) of the same Act does not provide any kind of incentives, etc. for one year from the date the person who received or intended to receive the incentives, etc. by false or other unlawful means or by restricting the return of the incentives, etc. paid and the payment of accounts payable, and that the provision does not provide any kind of incentives, etc. to the person who actually received or intended to receive the incentives, regardless of whether they were related to such unlawful means or other unlawful means, and that the right to request the payment was prepared to achieve the purpose of preventing unjust payment such as the incentives, etc. from being paid for the period of 20 years prior to the issuance of the incentives. Meanwhile, the purport of Article 35-4(2) of the Enforcement Decree does not change within 13 years prior to the payment restriction period.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)