'Cleaning staff fired for removing illegal trash for 30,000 won,' court rules "Unemployment benefits also restricted"

The photo is unrelated to the article content.

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A former sanitation worker who was fired for engaging in the so-called 'ttabang' activity?collecting illegally dumped trash and charging money?filed an appeal lawsuit after having his unemployment benefits restricted, but lost in the first trial.

According to the legal community on the 8th, Judge Jeong Wooyong of the Seoul Administrative Court, Administrative Division 8, recently ruled against plaintiff A, a former sanitation worker, in the lawsuit he filed against the Seoul Northern Branch of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office seeking cancellation of the denial of unemployment benefits.

Previously, in April 2021, A was dismissed after collecting a fee of 32,000 KRW from residents for handling waste that was illegally dumped without using designated waste bags.

Afterward, A applied for job-seeking benefits, but the labor office rejected the application on the grounds that "if a person is dismissed for embezzlement or breach of trust using their position, their eligibility for benefits under the Employment Insurance Act is restricted." A filed an administrative lawsuit in objection to this decision.

During the trial, A's side argued, "The final amount taken was only 16,000 KRW. I engaged in the ttabang activity only as a favor to a junior colleague who was in financial difficulty," appealing that the punishment was too harsh.

However, the first trial court judged that the labor office's decision was justified, stating, "It is difficult to view that the company's business was not significantly disrupted simply because the amount involved in the detected act was small."

Furthermore, the court stated, "This is not only a breach of trust against the company but also an act that obstructs the legitimate enforcement of national environmental policies," and "the company had to process unnecessary waste additionally, incurring extra effort and costs, so the plaintiff's breach of duty caused financial damage to the company."

Meanwhile, A was also investigated on charges related to the ttabang activity (breach of trust for receiving benefits), but the prosecution decided to suspend indictment. Suspension of indictment means that although the charges are acknowledged, the prosecutor decides not to bring the suspect to trial considering various circumstances.