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

A. Status of the parties

B (C) The plaintiff is children of Grade III mental disorders.

(b) Application for recognition of unemployment benefits B;

1) B, around March 17, 2017, dispatched to D after employment to E and was in charge of security guidance duties, and retired from the said company on June 13, 2017 on the ground of disease (hive disc).

2) On April 26, 2018, B filed an application for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits (hereinafter “instant application”) with the Defendant on April 26, 2018 when treating the said disease.

However, on May 15, 2018, the defendant issued a disposition not to recognize eligibility for job-seeking benefits (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") on the ground that "B has no intent to work and ability to work".

However, on May 21, 2018, the Defendant: (a) recognized that it was unable to be employed from June 14, 2017 to April 16, 2018, the period of job-seeking benefits, the period of which was extended from April 17, 2018 to April 16, 2019.

1) On May 16, 2018, B filed a request for review seeking cancellation of the instant disposition with an employment insurance examiner, but the employment insurance examiner dismissed the said request on July 3, 2018.

2) As of July 19, 2018, Suwon District Court Decision 2018Guhap1405, B filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition, asserting that “The Defendant’s act of taking the instant disposition on a different premise was unlawful, inasmuch as it is recognized that “B has retired from the Republic of Korea on a hive disc but is currently able to complete medical treatment, and thus, is currently able to be employed.”

However, on December 11, 2018, the above court rendered a ruling dismissing B’s claim on the ground that “The Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful” on the ground that it is difficult to view B’s disease (defluence) as at the time of the instant disposition is not completely cured, and thus, it is difficult to view B’s disease (defluence) as at the time of the instant disposition, and thus, it became final and conclusive on January 3, 2019.

(d) Filing applications for unemployment benefits for the plaintiff;

1) On February 7, 2019 and March 4, 2019, the Plaintiff asked the Plaintiff about the requirement for the supply and demand of unemployment benefits B through a national newspaper and civil petition. Accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the following answers on February 21, 2019 and March 11, 2019.

With regard to an application for recognition of eligibility for benefits under ○○, if the state of disease has improved as at the end of the period, and if the applicant intends to be re-employed, it can be judged whether the applicant for recognition of eligibility for benefits has been eligible for benefits before April 16, 2019, which is the expiration date of the benefit period, and at this time, there is no problem in the period of additional treatment due to disease from April 16, 2018 to the present after the extension of the benefit period.There is a doctor’s opinion that the extension of the benefit period will not interfere with the period of additional treatment and job-seeking.On the other hand, if it is impossible to perform any work due to a severe treatment with a thickness, the recognition of the eligibility for benefits should not be recognized, but it is necessary to extend the benefit period so that the right to receive benefits should not be extinguished, and if the applicant has been notified on or before the expiration date of the benefit period without reporting the expiration date of the benefit period, the applicant's opinion that the extension of the benefit period will continue to be emphasized.

2) On March 18, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for unemployment benefits with the capacity of guardian B to the effect that “B, from May 20, 2018 to February 25, 2019, was on job-seeking activities for nine months after treatment of hive disc, and was employed as a restaurant delivery facility from February 25, 2019, and thus, the Plaintiff shall file an application for unemployment benefits for nine months for the said job-seeking period.”

Accordingly, on April 1, 2019, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff on April 1, 2019, that “The content of the civil petition, B’s revocation of the instant disposition that rendered non-recognition of eligibility for employment insurance; and (b) recognition of eligibility for benefits from the date of application for the above eligibility for benefits to require retroactive payment of job-seeking benefits for the period after the date of application for eligibility for benefits; and (c) such demand for retroactive payment of job-seeking benefits cannot be accepted. Meanwhile, according to the shipping letter in relation to the said civil petition with a thickness, it is confirmed that the thickness is not currently unemployed due to the restaurant’s work during the restaurant distribution from February 25, 2019 to the restaurant distribution; (b) notified the Plaintiff that the new application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance should not be made, and the answer reached the Plaintiff on April 2,

On April 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for unemployment benefits for the nine months of the above job-seeking period as the guardian of B, but the Defendant notified the Defendant of the answer that he/she would refer to the answer of April 1, 2019 in the future on April 29, 2019, and the answer reached the Plaintiff on April 29, 2019.

3) On May 7, 2019, on behalf of B, the Plaintiff filed a request for an examination with an employment insurance examiner to pay job-seeking benefits for nine months of job-seeking period on behalf of B.

On May 14, 2019, the Employment Insurance Review Board sent the case to the Defendant, the original disposition office, on the ground that “A request for review was confirmed to revoke non-recognition of eligibility for unemployment benefits and require that job-seeking benefits be paid retroactively for the period after the date of application for eligibility for benefits, and that a request for review was to be submitted to an examiner via the Employment Security Office that made the original disposition, etc. pursuant to Article 87(1) and Article 90(1) of the Employment Insurance Act.” On June 3, 2019, the Defendant sent the case to the Defendant, who was the original disposition office. On May 15, 2018, the Defendant received the non-recognition of eligibility for unemployment benefits on May 15, 2018, against which the Employment Insurance Review Board requested the cancellation of the instant disposition, and was dismissed on July 3, 201 of the same year.” However, the instant request for review was already dismissed on the same content, and thus, notified the Defendant that the request was rejected.”

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 13 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

B A. On June 7, 2017, the occurrence of an employment disc from D Co., Ltd. on the ground of this on June 13, 2017, retired from the said company on the ground of this, and became completely cured after receiving long-term medical treatment from around that time to May 2018. B, after completely recovering from the above disease, was on job-seeking activities for nine months from May 20, 2018 to February 25, 2019, and was employed as a restaurant delivery facility around February 25, 2019. Therefore, the Defendant revoked the instant disposition and is obliged to pay job-seeking benefits for two hundred days. However, B cannot directly perform the instant lawsuit due to mental disorder Grade III, and thus, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit as his guardian.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. Part of claim for revocation of non-approval of job-seeking benefits

1) The plaintiff is disqualified

A) A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, is entitled to a decision of propriety by filing an administrative litigation seeking the revocation or invalidity confirmation of the administrative disposition, where the interests protected by the law are infringed by the pertinent administrative disposition. The term “legal interests” refers to cases where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant administrative disposition and relevant laws and regulations, and it does not include cases where there are only factual and economic interests, such as general, indirect, and abstract interests commonly held by the general public as a result of public interest protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du330, Mar. 16, 2006).

However, even if the Plaintiff suffered any disadvantage due to the instant disposition as the father of B, who is the other party to the instant disposition, it is merely an indirect, factual, and economic aspect, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff has "individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations" with respect to the instant disposition.

B) Therefore, there is no standing to seek revocation of the instant disposition against the Plaintiff (the mere fact that B is difficult to directly conduct the instant lawsuit due to a mental disorder does not qualify as the Plaintiff to seek revocation of the instant disposition). The instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is unlawful.

2) B (a) on July 19, 2018, the Suwon District Court 2018Guhap1405 (hereinafter referred to as Suwon District Court 2018Guhap1405) filed an administrative lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, but was sentenced to a judgment against the Defendant on December 11, 2018, and the facts that the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 3, 2019 are as seen earlier.

Therefore, even if a lawsuit was brought by B, other than the plaintiff, the part concerning the claim for revocation of the disposition in this case, cannot be permitted as it goes against the res judicata of the above judgment.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, according to Articles 40, 42, 43, and 44 of the Employment Insurance Act, the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition is unreasonable (the job-seeking benefits can be paid to a beneficiary who is recognized as eligible for job-seeking benefits by obtaining recognition of his/her unemployment for the days of unemployment. Therefore, B (or B’s substitute Plaintiff) does not request the Defendant to pay job-seeking benefits for the above job-seeking period (or nine months from May 20, 2018 to February 25, 2019) when the beneficiary becomes aware of eligibility for job-seeking benefits. B (or B’s substitute Plaintiff) should not request the Defendant to obtain recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits from the Plaintiff’s above national newspaper and civil petition, and the Defendant’s new claim for recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits from around February 21, 2019 and from March 11, 2019 to May 20, 2018.

B. Part of claim for job-seeking benefits

1) The so-called “performance of obligations” that orders an administrative agency to actively conduct a certain act is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu868, Sept. 12, 1989; 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992).

2) The Plaintiff filed a claim for job-seeking benefits, such as the purport of the claim against the Defendant, but this constitutes a lawsuit for performance of obligations and thus cannot be filed as an administrative litigation (and there is no title to seek payment of job-seeking benefits against the Plaintiff. And even if the Plaintiff did not obtain recognition of eligibility for job-seeking benefits, the Plaintiff cannot file an application for payment of job-seeking

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is all unlawful, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

Judges Lee Jae-soo

Judges public-private partnership