임금피크제 지원금 부지급 처분 취소
1. On January 21, 2016, the Defendant’s decision to pay a site price to the Plaintiff is revoked.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From May 14, 2013, the Plaintiff is a person who served as an assistant to the trustee in bankruptcy of the Korea Savings Bank, Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation.
B. On March 13, 2015, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation amended the Rules of Employment, which is a business assistant to the bankrupt estate (hereinafter “Rules of Employment”) (hereinafter “Rules of Employment”) as follows. The main contents are as follows.
C. Even after the Plaintiff reached the retirement age of 58 years of age on December 31, 2013 pursuant to the former Rules of Employment before the amendment, the Plaintiff entered into each employment contract with the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation every several months and was paid KRW 3.5 million each month. However, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 2.5 million each month after entering into the employment contract on April 30, 2015, which was first applied by the Rules of Employment after the amendment.
Accordingly, on January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the payment of the subsidies for the wage peak system during the period from April 30, 2015 to December 31, 2015, pursuant to Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act, and Article 28(1)1 and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act.
E. However, on January 21, 2016, the Defendant: (a) limited to a person who reaches the retirement age after the enforcement of the wage peak system; (b) the Plaintiff has already reached the retirement age on March 13, 2013, which was before the enforcement of the wage peak system; (c) thus, on January 21, 2016, the Defendant decided the Plaintiff’s payment of a site for the subsidy for the wage peak system (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, and the purport of Gap's evidence 1 to 3 and the whole argument
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. According to the Plaintiff’s employment insurance law, the Plaintiff constitutes a person eligible for subsidies for wage peak system regardless of whether the Plaintiff reached the retirement age at the time of enforcement of the wage peak system.
Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 28 (1) 1 and 28 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act are the business owner.