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

A. On September 30, 201, the Plaintiff retired from employment at the Busan Natural Gas Development Headquarters, and on October 13, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits and job seeking with the Defendant on October 13, 2011, and recognized eligibility for benefits of KRW 240,000 for the fixed benefit payment days and KRW 40,000 for the job-seeking benefits. The Plaintiff, as a large-amount beneficiary under Article 59 of the Employment Insurance Act, was designated as the unemployment recognition date on January 27, 2012, for three months after the grace

B. On October 24, 201, the Plaintiff had been employed by the three-day Technology Co., Ltd. during the grace period for job-seeking benefits, resulting in the Plaintiff’s failure to appear within the unemployment recognition date and was not subject to verification of unemployment.

C. On August 2012, the Plaintiff retired from the foregoing three-day technology, and thereafter on February 9, 2012, filed a new application for job seeking with the Defendant as a business planning, management, and support clerk through a computer network (www. Work.go.kr).

D. On March 12, 2012, the Plaintiff began to engage in self-employment as B, and on October 2, 2012, the Defendant claimed employment insurance early re-employment allowance to the Defendant on the ground of the start-up of business, but on October 5, 2012, the Defendant issued a disposition of early re-employment allowance at the site for early re-employment allowance on the ground that the Plaintiff started the business without preparing for self-employment.

E. On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but was dismissed on March 13, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, 7, 8, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 5, 7, 8, 9

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On February 9, 2012, after the retirement from the Sejong-day technology, the Plaintiff commenced self-employment and claimed early re-employment allowances six months after the start date. Thus, even if the Plaintiff did not report self-employment preparatory activities in advance, the Plaintiff’s prior disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff was not entitled to early re-employment allowances, on October 10, 201, since it did not hear the fact that the payment of high-amount money and valuables was delayed at the unemployment benefit presentation held at the time of filing a unemployment report to the Defendant on February 13, 2011, as the Plaintiff did not hear an explanation of the procedure for claiming early re-employment allowances in the event of start-up, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed liable to the Plaintiff for failing to undergo the procedure for claiming early re-employment allowances separately after retirement from the Sejong-day technology.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 64 (1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the early re-employment allowance shall be paid if an eligible recipient has re-employment in a stable occupation or for-profit business, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 84 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the standard prescribed by Presidential Decree" means where an eligible recipient has been left for at least 30 days after the waiting period under Article 49 of the Act and re-employment falls under any of the following cases as of the day immediately before the date of re-employment," and subparagraph 2 of the same Article provides that "if an eligible recipient continues to engage in the business for at least six months, the eligible recipient shall be present at the Employment Security Office to report his/her eligibility for early re-employment as a job-seeking procedure within the relevant benefit period under Article 44 (2) of the Act and report his/her eligibility for early re-employment to the Employment Security Office on the ground that the eligible recipient needs to be recognized as a job-seeking procedure from the date of reporting reemployment under Article 42 to the date of approval for unemployment recognition."

On October 13, 201, the plaintiff reported the unemployment to the defendant on October 13, 201, and recognized the eligibility for early re-employment allowance from the defendant. After that, the plaintiff was re-employed in the three-day technology during the benefit period and did not receive the unemployment recognition. The plaintiff retired from the three-day technology and started one’s own business as B at the time of applying for reemployment, and thereafter claimed early re-employment allowance to the defendant for six months or more. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not report as a preparatory activity for self-employment under the report of unemployment to the defendant as a preparatory activity for self-employment and received the unemployment recognition from the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not fall under the eligibility for early re-employment allowance as a requirement for early re-employment allowance. The plaintiff did not have any obligation to explain the defendant about the procedure for early re-employment allowance even if the plaintiff did not hear an explanation about the procedure for early re-employment allowance from the defendant, or there were circumstances after retirement from the three-day technology. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s assertion that the application for early re-employment allowance does not have any grounds.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Doo

Judges Senior Superintendent and Senior Superintendent

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.