2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The Defendant’s disposition of early re-employment allowance for the Plaintiff on August 25, 2014 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Of the reasons in the first instance trial, 2.(c)(2)(Ma)(5)(5-17(5)(2)(5-17(5)(3)(5)(5)(5)(2)(2)(10

(E) The Defendant asserts to the effect that, on February 1, 2014, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have worked for at least six consecutive months since it reported the Plaintiff’s loss of the insured status as a self-employed person from February 1, 2014 to the Plaintiff and acquired the insured status as an employment insurance in the Namyang C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Namyang”) and performed C business until April 30, 2014.

(1) According to the statement stated in the evidence Nos. 14, 15, and 17-1, the Plaintiff lost the insured status of employment insurance at B on February 1, 2014, and maintained the insured status of employment insurance at B until April 30, 2014, while acquiring the insured status of employment insurance at Namyang as well as maintaining the insured status in B from May 1, 2014 to January 1, 2016, and the Plaintiff provided labor and received benefits in Namyangtech from February 1, 2014 to April 30, 2014.

(2) However, in light of the following circumstances, the employment relationship between the Plaintiff and B between February 1, 2014 and April 30, 2014, based on the fact of recognition under the above sub-paragraph (1) cannot be deemed to have been interrupted by taking into account the following circumstances, which can be seen as having been comprehensively revealed in the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 18-1, 2, and 19-3 of evidence Nos. 18-2 and 19-2.

① During the period from February 1, 2014 to April 30, 2014, B consented to the Plaintiff’s conduct of work in B as well as the conduct of work in Namyangtech (i.e., permitting concurrent office). However, the insured status of the employment insurance was changed as above due to the relationship where the wage in Namyangtech was higher than that in B’s benefits.

From February 1, 2014 to April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff engaged in the emergency duty in B during the period from February 1, 2014 to April 30, 2014, and accordingly, received benefits from B during the said period.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Jin-jin

Judges Jeong-jin