고용보험 피보험자격 상실사유 정정처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. From July 1, 1993 to September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted a resignation letter stating that “I, as above, intend to retire from a mental or physical disability or disability (e.g., a separate certificate of diagnosis)” at the instant workplace on September 8, 2017 at the instant workplace (hereinafter “instant resignation letter”), and the name of diagnosis on the medical certificate attached to the said resignation letter was written as a qualitative mental disorder.
After that, on September 28, 2017, the instant workplace reported the loss of insured status of the Plaintiff’s employment insurance by entering it as a voluntary withdrawal from employment due to the individual circumstances in the mine branch of Korea Labor Welfare Corporation on September 8, 2017.
On January 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the head of Gwangju Regional Labor Office for the correction of the grounds for the Plaintiff’s loss of the insured status as “recommended or dismissal” and the Gwangju Regional Labor Office corrected the Plaintiff’s reason for the loss of the insured status as “voluntary withdrawal on February 6, 2018 due to disease or injury.”
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an employment insurance review request, but the said review request was dismissed on May 18, 2018, and the request for review was also dismissed on September 19, 2018.
E. Meanwhile, while the Employment Insurance Act was partially amended by Act No. 16269 on January 15, 2019 during the instant lawsuit, the Defendant succeeded to the status of the Gwangju Regional Labor Office as to the confirmation of the acquisition or loss of insured status pursuant to Article 7 of the Addenda.
(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” without distinguishing between “Magju Regional Employment and Labor Office” and “Defendant”, and only hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap’s written opinion of the original disposition office No. 1 A, 2, and Eul’s evidence No. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's summary of the allegation in this case was directly prepared or submitted by the plaintiff.