육아휴직급여차액지급신청반려처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of applying for the payment of the difference in childcare benefits against the Plaintiff on April 28, 2014 shall be revoked.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiff is working at Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.
From February 7, 2011 to November 30, 2011, childcare leave was granted.
The Plaintiff received childcare leave benefits based on the monthly ordinary wages calculated by the Defendant for the aforementioned period of childcare leave.
B. On April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant an application to the effect that “The amount of bonuses, long-term continuous service allowances, meal allowance, transportation subsidy, and customized welfare card is included in ordinary wages, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the paid-in temporary retirement benefits based on the fixed ordinary wage as above, and the paid-in temporary retirement benefits,” “the Defendant is obligated to revoke the partial payment of the land for the Plaintiff’s temporary retirement benefits. The Defendant shall pay the difference between the paid-in temporary retirement benefits calculated based on the fixed ordinary wage and the paid-in temporary retirement benefits to the Plaintiff, which are calculated based on the fixed ordinary wage, including bonuses, etc. (hereinafter “instant application”).
C. In order to verify the purport of the instant application on the same day, the employee in charge of the Defendant called to the certified labor affairs consultant B, who was delegated with all authority over the application for childcare leave.
Accordingly, the above B responded to the purport of “the purport of the application is the re-determination of the property for childcare benefits according to the ordinary wage. If the objection form is not a justifiable claim such as a request for review or administrative litigation, I would like to confirm the corresponding defendant’s opinion. Even if it is the peremptory Doers under the Guidelines for the Management of Employment and Labor Review, I would like to confirm the corresponding defendant’s opinion on the disposition corresponding thereto.”
On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a document stating that “The purpose of submitting the instant application to the Defendant is not to file a request for review, and it is not to file a request for return. It is not to file a request for future guidance on the progress of administrative litigation procedures.”
E. On April 28, 2014, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to return the instant application.