A. The Plaintiff is working at the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service and was on childcare leave for childbirth from November 3, 2012 to August 11, 2013. The Plaintiff was on childcare leave according to the monthly ordinary wage calculated by the Defendant during the aforementioned childcare leave.

[Attachment] Child-care leave benefits were paid as indicated below.

[Attachment]

A person shall be appointed.

B. On April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted an application to the Defendant stating that “The amount of bonuses, long-term continuous service allowances, meal allowance, transportation subsidy, and customized welfare card is included in ordinary wages, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the amount of the temporary retirement benefits paid at the temporary retirement benefits for childcare based on the fixed ordinary wage as above,” and that “the Defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the temporary retirement benefits for childcare and the temporary retirement benefits paid to the Plaintiff based on the fixed ordinary wage. The Defendant shall pay the difference between the temporary retirement benefits for childcare calculated based on the fixed ordinary wage and the temporary retirement benefits paid to the Plaintiff, including bonuses, etc. (hereinafter “instant application”).

Accordingly, in order to verify the purport of the application of this case on the same day, the employee in charge of the defendant called the certified labor affairs consultant B who submitted the application on behalf of the plaintiff. The purport of the application is the property re-determination of childcare benefits according to ordinary wage. If the objection form is not a request for examination or administrative litigation, it would like to confirm the corresponding defendant's opinion on the corresponding treatment. Even if the person is the minor with the peremptory intention under the former Labor Standards Review Board guidelines, he would want to confirm the defendant's opinion on the corresponding treatment.

C. On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a document stating that “The purport of the submission of the instant application to the Defendant is not that of the request for review, and thus, the return disposition is not that of the request for review, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks to guide the proceeding of administrative litigation.”

D. Accordingly, on April 28, 2014, the Defendant issued a notice of return (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff requested return of the instant application, and thus, shall return all the documents. Administrative litigation is possible within 90 days from the date of becoming aware of the original disposition, and within one year from the date of the initial disposition.”

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 through 7, 9 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion

The Defendant’s last payment of childcare leave benefits to the Plaintiff is a disposition date on September 1, 2013 (the first [Attachment No. 4] that was made by the Defendant, and the instant lawsuit was filed with the intention of 90 days thereafter, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it exceeds the filing period.

B. Determination

(1) Article 107 of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 12323, Jan. 21, 2014; hereinafter the same) provides that "the right to receive childcare benefits expires unless the right to receive childcare benefits is exercised for three years." Thus, even if the initial period of payment expires, it is necessary to verify the defendant's position as to whether the plaintiff can seek childcare benefits for which the period of extinctive prescription does not expire. ② Articles 62(1), 70(2), 71, 73, and 74(1) of the Employment Insurance Act; Articles 81, 95(1) through (4) and 97 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Articles 116 and 117 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act provide that "the right to receive childcare benefits under the Employment Insurance Act shall be denied by an administrative agency directly taking into account whether the defendant's right to receive childcare benefits under the above-mentioned Act can be seen as an action of denial of childcare benefits under Article 16(17) of the Enforcement Rule.

(2) Therefore, inasmuch as the Defendant brought the instant lawsuit as the subject matter of revocation of the instant disposition, it cannot be deemed that the period of filing the lawsuit was elapsed, counting from the previous date of payment decision on childcare leave ( September 11, 2013). Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Bonuses, long-term continuous service allowances, meal allowance, transportation subsidy, job class allowance, and customized welfare card are fixed fixed wages to be paid periodically and uniformly during the period of wage calculation, regardless of the actual number of working days or the amount received. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the fixed amount of childcare benefits including the ordinary wages and the already received childcare benefits, and thus, the disposition of this case that rejected it is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant interpreted that "the plaintiff has requested the return of the application of this case" from the plaintiff, and made a request for return of the application of this case," and rejected all of the application of this case.

(2) However, the plaintiff filed the application in this case with the purport that "the defendant shall pay the difference between the childcare leave benefits calculated based on the ordinary wage, including bonus, and the childcare leave benefits paid to the plaintiff." The plaintiff's agent in charge of the defendant's employee and telephone conversations with the defendant's employee in charge with the defendant's opinion that "the purport of the application is the property of the childcare leave benefits. It is not the request for review," and "the plaintiff's opinion is not a request for review." The plaintiff's opinion is interpreted to mean that the plaintiff is not seeking the return of documents on the premise of the withdrawal of the application, but seeking a rejection disposition on the premise that the guidance of the appeal procedure is indicated.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful and thus revoked (the Defendant must re-examine and dispose of the instant application).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Young-chul

Judges Lee Jin-jin

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.