2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

A. The plaintiff (B) has been employed as a security guard at the office of the apartment house management in the Gu-si government of Jan. 1, 2003 and served until now.

B. On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff discovered that the date of acquisition of the insured status was on January 1, 2006, and submitted a written request for verification of the insured status for employment insurance (Evidence A) to the Defendant to the effect that the date of acquisition of the insured status for employment insurance was corrected on January 1, 2003. Accordingly, the Defendant submitted a written request for verification of the insured status for employment insurance (Evidence A) to the effect that the request for verification was made retroactively from March 21, 2014, the date of receipt of the written request for verification to the Plaintiff, and the date of acquisition was changed retroactively by three years from March 3, 2014, the date of receipt of the request for verification, and thus, it is not possible under Article 50(5) of the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for review of the instant disposition with an employment insurance examiner on the ground that the date of acquiring the insured status of the Plaintiff’s employment insurance on July 23, 2014 was reasonable to deem that the date of acquiring the insured status of the Plaintiff’s employment insurance on January 1, 2004, and that it cannot be seen as January 1, 2004. [Grounds for recognition]] The Plaintiff filed a decision of dismissal on the ground that the date of acquiring the insured status of the Plaintiff’s employment insurance on July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff did not dispute [Grounds for recognition], written evidence Nos. 1, 3, 9, 11, 16, and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

With the revision of the Employment Insurance Act, even if the scope of workers excluded from the application of the above Act is reduced, the Plaintiff becomes a person eligible for acquisition of employment insurance (which shall be less than 65 years old at the time of entry), and in the case of the Plaintiff, the date of acquisition of insured status of this employment insurance on January 1, 2004, which was the enforcement date of the amended Act expanded after January 1, 2003, which was the date of entry into the workplace. Nevertheless, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form is as specified in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 8 of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6850 of Dec. 30, 2002), which was enforced on January 1, 2003, as of December 31, 2003, provides that the above Act shall not apply to the newly employed persons after the age of 60 (No. 1), and persons aged 65 (No. 1-2) who were aged 64 years and older at the time of entry. At that time, the Plaintiff was a newly employed person after the age of 60 and were not subject to the Employment Insurance Act pursuant to Article 8 subparagraph 1 of the above Act.

(2) Whether the Employment Insurance Act is applied between January 1, 2004 and January 12, 2005: The amended Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7048 of Dec. 31, 2003, Jan. 1, 2004), Article 8 of the amended Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7048 of Dec. 31, 2003, effective as of January 1, 2004), deleted "a person newly employed after the age of 60," and applied the Employment Insurance Act to the person aged 65 or older, but still did not apply the above Act to the person aged 65 or older (Article 1). However, the plaintiff was a worker who was still subject to the Employment Insurance Act as amended pursuant to Article 8 subparagraph 1 of the above Act as of January 1, 2004.

(3) On January 1, 2006, as between June 3, 2013, whether the Employment Insurance Act applies: Article 8 of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8050, Oct. 4, 2006; January 1, 2006); however, Article 8 of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 8050, Jan. 1, 2006) does not apply to a person who is still aged 65 or older (Article 8 subparagraph 1); however, Article 12-2 of the above Act provides that the above Act shall apply to a person who is 65 or older years of age (proviso to Article 8), while Article 12-2 of the above Act provides that if a person who was excluded from the application of this Act becomes subject to this Act due to the amendment of the Act, he/she shall have acquired the insured status as of the date (i.e., the amendment of the Act).

Accordingly, on January 1, 2006, the enforcement date of the above amended Act, the Plaintiff acquired insured status for employment security and vocational skills development projects.

(4) On or after June 4, 2013: Application of the Employment Insurance Act:

Since then, the Employment Insurance Act (amended and enforced June 4, 2013), this Act applies to all businesses or workplaces that employ workers (Article 8): Provided, That this Act does not apply to those employed or self-employed after age 65, while Article 10) and Article 13 (Article 13 (1) applies to those who were employed or self-employed after age 65 and those who were excluded from the application of the previous Act are subject to the application of this Act (Article 13 (1)).

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s employment prior to the age of 65 (the employee employed in June 64), and the Plaintiff was not a non-applicable employee under the current law, and thus was subject to the entire Employment Insurance Act. However, as seen earlier before the amendment of the Act, the Plaintiff was a worker excluded from unemployment benefits and was subject to the entire Employment Insurance Act due to the amendment of the Act. As such, the Plaintiff acquired the insured status even in unemployment benefits on June 4, 2013, the enforcement date of the Act pursuant to Article 13(1)1 of the Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff is judged to have acquired the insured status as to unemployment benefits on June 4, 2013, and it is determined to have acquired the insured status as to the employment security and vocational skills development project on January 1, 2006. Thus, although the plaintiff did not acquire the insured status as to unemployment benefits, etc. on January 1, 2004 alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant should have notified the plaintiff of the qualification qualification qualification acquisition as to the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of the insured status as to unemployment benefits as of June 4, 2013, "the date of acquisition of the insured status as to unemployment benefits". However, it is not reasonable to dispose of that fact that the defendant's confirmation against the plaintiff was not possible pursuant to Article 50 (5) of the Employment Insurance Act after three years from March 3, 2014, which is the date of receipt of the confirmation request, as to the plaintiff. Thus, the

50. The limitation of paragraph 5 of Article 50 is not a problem.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.