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

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited by the main text of

2. Additional determination

The plaintiff asserts that the employment adjustment under Article 26 (3) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act does not include a recommended position by a business owner.

The purpose of the employment subsidy system, such as elderly people, is to facilitate and maintain employment of elderly people who have difficulties in employment despite the intention of employment, and the employment subsidy for elderly people, etc. is to prevent employment of elderly people, etc. who are vulnerable in employment by applying if they meet certain conditions, such as where they maintain more than a certain standard of employment under the above Enforcement Decree. In the event they fail to meet such conditions, it is to exclude them from the payment, and to prevent employment of elderly people, etc. who are vulnerable in employment by allowing them to be excluded from the payment. In light of the balance between the employment insurance Article 58 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 58 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that insured workers who have been dismissed due to serious reasons or have left employment due to their own reason are not entitled to receive job-seeking benefits, the "in case of leaving employment by adjustment of employment" means the case where the employment contract of the employee is terminated without due to the employer's reasons or voluntary need for management, etc., which means a wide concept rather than the "in

In this case, in addition to the overall purport of the evidence submitted in the first instance trial, it is recognized that the Plaintiff reported the loss of insured status with respect to C and D on December 14, 2015 and February 5, 2016, as follows: C is a "wages for wage reduction and employee adjustment"; D is a "new employee appropriation during the period of temporary retirement; and the reason for loss (see attached Form 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act) is "23; and it is included in the retirement from office (including dismissal, recommendation, resignation, and voluntary retirement) due to managerial needs; and as alleged by the Plaintiff, C is difficult to deem that there was a serious cause to continue to work with respect to C and D; or that there was a voluntary resignation prior to the Plaintiff's recommendation; and therefore, C is not a reason for voluntary retirement from office without the Plaintiff's recommendation.

The plaintiff's assertion from a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Yang Sung-won

Judges Cho Sung-sung