An environmental sanitation worker clears fallen leaves on Jeongdong-gil, Jung-gu, Seoul. / Reporter Junheon Lee
An environmental sanitation worker who was fired for the so-called ‘dadabang’ act of collecting illegally abandoned waste and receiving compensation filed a lawsuit asking for unemployment benefits, but lost in the first trial.
Judge Jung Woo-yong of the 8th administrative court of the Seoul Administrative Court announced on the 8th that he had ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the Northern Branch of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Administration by Mr.
Mr. A was fired in April 2021 after receiving 32,000 won from residents for collecting large-scale waste that was discharged without permission. The act of disposing of wastes discharged without using a volume-rate system bag or without a payment certificate and receiving compensation is called ‘Ttabang’ in slang among sanitation workers. He later applied for unemployment benefits to the Labor Office, but was rejected. The Labor Office saw that Mr. A was ‘a person who was fired for using his position to embezzle public money or breach of duty’ and was subject to restrictions on eligibility for benefits under the Insurance Act.
When the request for reexamination was rejected, Mr. A filed an administrative lawsuit in July of last year. At the trial, Mr. A argued, “It was nothing more than a ‘dating’ act in consideration of a junior in financial difficulty at the request of a junior, and it does not fall under the case of causing a huge disruption to the employer’s business or causing property damage.” He also said that out of the 32,000 won that he earned through the act of ‘Dabang’, the amount he finally acquired was only 16,000 won. Mr. A was investigated by the Seoul Northern District Prosecutor’s Office for this case and received a suspended indictment for the crime of breach of trust.
The court judged that the disposition of the Labor Office not to pay unemployment benefits to Mr. A was lawful. If the reason for the dismissal is malpractice, it falls under the reason for limiting the eligibility for benefits, and it is not necessary that the damage caused by Mr. A to the company is ‘extremely’. The judge said, “The act of wandering is done on the premise of an illegal or unfair relationship with residents, and (Mr. A’s act) is not only an act of breach of trust to the company, but also an act that interferes with the legitimate execution of national environmental policies.”
The judge continued, “It is difficult to say that Mr. A’s act is not an act that will cause a huge hindrance to the company’s business just because the amount corresponding to the detected act is small.” It would have taken additional time, so the plaintiff (Mr. A)’s breach of duty caused property damage to the company.”