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

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates the CCertified Judicial Scriveners Office in Songpa-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant place of business”), and B is a person who has worked as the head of the instant place of business in charge of commercial registration, etc. from November 1, 2015 to August 31, 2017.

B. On September 13, 2017, the Plaintiff reported the loss of insured status for employment insurance to the head of the Seoul Eastern District Office on the ground that the date of loss of insured status B’s insured status was “ September 1, 2017,” and that “voluntary withdrawal from employment due to personal circumstances” was “voluntary withdrawal from employment.”

C. B asserted that the details of the above report on loss are different from the facts, and on September 28, 2017, the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency requested the head of the Seoul Eastern District Office to confirm the insured status status as employment insurance insurance, requesting the head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency to correct the reason for loss of insured status from “voluntary withdrawal due to personal circumstances” to “a recommendation agency due to business necessity.” The head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency accepted the request and corrected the reason for loss of insured status as “a recommendation agency for business necessity” on November 2, 2017.

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(D) On January 10, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for review with an employment insurance examiner on January 10, 2018, but the said request was dismissed on February 13, 2018. On March 5, 2018, the Employment Insurance Review Committee filed a request for review on March 5, 2018, but the said request for review was dismissed on April 11, 2018. E. Following the amendment of the Employment Insurance Act, the Plaintiff succeeded to the authority of the head of the Seoul Employment and Labor Winter Site Office (UP) that was related to the instant disposition by the Defendant. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, Party A’s entries in subparagraphs 1 through 4, 9, and Nos. 1 through 4

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B did not recommend the Plaintiff to resign for business reasons, but did not receive a “voluntary resignation” as a complaint regarding his working conditions, but received unemployment benefits.