2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On November 22, 2012, the Plaintiff, who was employed by Agjin Transport Co., Ltd. on November 14, 2012 while working for Agjin Transport Co., Ltd. on November 22, 2012, upon applying for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance to the Defendant on November 22, 2012, recognized eligibility for benefits of KRW 240,000 for the fixed benefit payment days and KRW 40,000 for the job-seeking benefits. On November 29, 2012, the Plaintiff received four instances of unemployment recognition from November 29, 201 to February 2013, and received KRW 2,720,000 for 68 days in total.

B. On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a self-business activity plan (type of business: private taxi) to the Defendant on January 31, 2013, and reported the scheduled commencement date to the Defendant on February 13, 2013. On February 7, 2013 of the same year, the Plaintiff submitted a business registration certificate for the private taxi business (as of February 5, 2013) to the Defendant at the time of filing an application for unemployment recognition.

C. On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for early re-employment allowance with the Defendant on August 13, 2013, but the Defendant rendered a claim for early re-employment allowance on September 9, 2013 on the ground that the business was commenced without having received the recognition of unemployment as a preparatory activity for self-employment.

D. Accordingly, on October 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with an employment insurance examiner to revoke the instant disposition, but was dismissed on January 6, 2014. On April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but was dismissed on May 7, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for early re-employment allowance on the ground that, based on the “Rules on Recognition of Unemployment and Assistance to Re-employment of Beneficiaries and the “Rules on Unemployment Benefits” (hereinafter each of the instant provisions and “the instant Work Manual”), after submitting a separate business operation plan on the unemployment recognition date, the Plaintiff was present at a separate unemployment recognition date and should undergo the verification of unemployment regarding preparation for self-employment activities. The Plaintiff was in the third unemployment recognition date ( January 31, 2013), and the Defendant submitted a business operation plan, etc. to the Defendant at the time of applying for the said unemployment recognition, submitted the said plan to obtain the recognition of unemployment, and thus, it shall be deemed to meet the requirements for receiving early re-employment allowance under the Employment Insurance Act, the Enforcement Decree, and the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act, and the Enforcement Rule.

2) Even based on the instant work manual, “where it proves that a business operator had not commenced before the date of unemployment verification, it shall be deemed as a preparatory activity for self-business verification if it is proven that the business had not been commenced before the date of unemployment verification, and thus, the Plaintiff shall be paid early re-employment allowance to the Plaintiff, on February 5, 2013, since the Plaintiff registered a personal taxi business on February 5, 2013, but actually commenced the above business before the fourth unemployment verification date (see February 7, 2013), as it was in fact reported as a preparatory activity for personal taxi business in accordance with the instant work manual and could have been subject to unemployment verification, by reporting it as a re-employment in accordance with the instant work manual, and the Defendant refused the verification of the actual commencement of private taxi business in the fourth unemployment verification date without confirming the commencement of the business, and thereby the instant

B. Defendant’s assertion

According to the relevant statutes, the instant regulations and the instant work manual, the Plaintiff was the third unemployment recognition date (2013).

1. The plaintiff submitted a plan for self-employment activities in 31.) and reported self-employment activities in the fourth unemployment recognition date (as of February 7, 2013), and should have started business registration and start business after receiving the unemployment recognition. Since the plaintiff registered his business on February 5, 2013 and started his own taxi business on February 5, 2013, the plaintiff did not meet the requirements for the payment of early re-employment allowances. Accordingly, the disposition in this case is legitimate.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Facts of recognition;

A. According to the individual benefits of the Defendant’s preparation, the Plaintiff’s application for job-seeking benefits against the Defendant and the subsequent payment details are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On December 14, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained a taxi driver’s license, completed safety education for the taxi driver on the same day, and on January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff was for private taxi business.

On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for the third unemployment recognition with the Defendant. On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a self-employment activity plan (type of business: individual taxi and scheduled commencement date: February 13, 2013) along with the details of job-seeking activities, and on February 7, 2013, the application for the unemployment recognition was filed on February 4, 201, accompanied by a business registration certificate for the said individual taxi business (as of February 5, 2013), and submitted it to the Defendant, stating the details of self-employment preparation activities, such as Paragraph b., to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

5. Determination

A. Grounds for the instant disposition

Article 64(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the early re-employment allowance shall be paid in cases where an eligible recipient engages in a stable job or a profit-making business on his/her own, and where an eligible recipient runs a profit-making business under Article 64(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25022, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter "Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act") provides that "the case where an eligible recipient runs a profit-making business under Article 64(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25022, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter "the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act") has been re-employed for at least 30 days after the waiting period under Article 49 of the same Act, and the eligible recipient has been re-employed for at least six consecutive months."

As above, the purport of the Employment Insurance Act’s payment of early re-employment allowance is to minimize the period of job-seeking and encourage stable reemployment by providing the beneficiary with money equivalent to a certain percentage of the unpaid part of the amount of job-seeking benefits, regardless of whether he/she is engaged in his/her self-employment business or having been paid job-seeking benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19892, Dec. 8, 201). Article 84(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides for the payment of early re-employment allowance by proposing more objective and specific methods and details for verifying the authenticity and stability of re-employment.

Meanwhile, examining whether the instant work manual applied as the basis of the instant disposition can be deemed as the legal basis for the instant disposition, the foregoing work manual is merely an administrative interpretation that the superior administrative agency established the work process guidelines or the standards for interpreting and applying statutes to subordinate administrative agencies, and does not have any legal effect since it is not delegated with the provision of the disposition requirements, etc. Therefore, the lawfulness of the instant disposition should not be determined based on the above work manual, but on the requirements of the relevant statutes (the Employment Insurance Act, the Enforcement Decree, the Enforcement Rule, and the instant provision) (Article 10(3) of the Regulations of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, which are the established rules of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, provides two times for the procedures for the recognition of unemployment as to the self-employment preparation for the self-employment preparation for the pertinent work (the subsequent work plan is submitted for the unemployment recognition, and the subsequent work for the unemployment recognition is reported as the self-employment preparation for the pertinent work, and thus, it does not have legal effect. However, Article 84(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act only requires the Plaintiff's special work preparation for re-employment.

B. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances are considered to be met: ① the head of the Employment Insurance Act shall recognize the unemployment date from the date immediately following the unemployment recognition period to the date of unemployment recognition; ② the defendant, at the time of the 4th unemployment recognition ( February 7, 2013), filed an application for the payment of unemployment allowance to the 2th day after the 1st day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 3th day after the 20th day after the 2013th day after the 20th day after the 20th day

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Jae-soo

Benefits of Judge chief

A person shall be appointed.