1. The Defendant’s disposition of partial payment of childcare leave benefits against the Plaintiff on May 30, 2014 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff joined the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service and gave birth to his/her child on September 16, 2012, and took childcare leave on September 15, 2013. At the commencement date of childcare leave, the Plaintiff’s occupational class and salary class are class 5-10 of the examination position, and the Plaintiff applied for childcare leave for ten times in relation to the above childcare leave and received KRW 8,185,120 from the Defendant for childcare leave.

B. In calculating the aforementioned temporary retirement benefits, the Defendant included basic salary and qualification allowances in ordinary wages, and the bonus, long-term continuous service allowances, meal support expenses, transport support expenses, and customized welfare cards (hereinafter “batch, etc.”) did not include in ordinary wages.

The Plaintiff’s response to the application for the difference in temporary retirement benefits for childcare (No. 1) filed a request for temporary retirement benefits from September 16, 2012 to September 15, 2013, which was paid as October 7, 2013, and thus, it is known that the period (within 90 days from the date on which he/she became aware of the disposition) during which he/she may raise an objection to the said disposition has been well known.

C. On May 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for payment of the difference between the temporary retirement benefits for childcare and the amount paid during the period, calculated based on ordinary wages, including bonuses, etc. (hereinafter “instant application”). On the 30th of the same month, the Defendant issued the following notice to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s claim 1 is merely seeking a difference, not the application for childcare leave under Article 70(3) of the Employment Insurance Act, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case is merely an instruction reply on the above application, and does not constitute a disposition prescribed in Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s claim for the difference between childcare leave and childcare leave and the Defendant.