A. The Plaintiff, while working in the Financial Supervisory Service, was granted childcare leave from September 1, 2014 to September 10, 2015 pursuant to Article 19 of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act. (2) The Plaintiff applied for payment of childcare leave benefits for the entire period of childcare leave to the Defendant on November 25, 2014 during the period of childcare leave.

3) On December 5, 2014, the Defendant paid only the child care leave benefits to the Plaintiff for “from September 11, 2014 to November 10, 2014” (hereinafter in this context, the remainder of the period excluding the period during which the child care leave benefits were paid during the entire period of the child care leave.”

(4) The Plaintiff completed childcare leave on September 10, 2015, and returned to the Financial Supervisory Service on September 11, 2015.

B. On October 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment of childcare leave benefits for the unpaid period against the Defendant. However, on October 25, 2017, the Defendant rendered a claim for payment of childcare leave benefits against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not file an application for payment of childcare leave benefits within 12 months from the termination date of childcare leave pursuant to Article 70(2) of the Employment Insurance Act.” 2) On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment of childcare leave benefits again with the Defendant for the unpaid period.

However, on November 7, 2017, the Defendant again made a decision on the site pay to the Plaintiff for the said reasons.

At the same time, "the disposition of this case" is referred to as "the disposition of this case, including the decision of October 25, 2017 and the decision of site pay on November 7, 2017."

November 7, 2017 is a separate disposition that is distinguished from the decision of site pay on October 25, 2017.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Nu10292 delivered on June 11, 1991). 【Fact-founded ground for recognition’s absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 8, and Eul’s evidence 1 (if there are spot numbers, number number)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main text of Article 70(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the Plaintiff’s assertion shall be made.