(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.8.18. 선고 2015구합2193 판결

A. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance with the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff retired from office in Busan Regional Self-sufficiency Center on May 5, 2014, and on November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff recognized eligibility for benefits of KRW 150 days for the fixed payment days and KRW 37,512 for the amount of the former class, and was paid KRW 5,626,760 for job-seeking benefits from June 9, 2014 to November 5, 2014.

B. On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual extended benefits with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”). On November 7, 2014, the Defendant rendered a non-recognition of individual extended benefits for employment insurance (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the eligibility requirements for individual extended benefits under Article 52 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 73(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

C. On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with an employment insurance examiner on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on January 1, 2015. Accordingly, on April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but was dismissed on June 10, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s father B, who was 65 years of age or older at the time of the instant application, was in a state of need for support, such as support for others, because it was difficult to independently lead a daily life, etc., and the Plaintiff substantially supported B after September 23, 2014, who was hospitalized in the High University Uniform Hospital B. Since then, the Plaintiff provided job placement services at least three times until the completion of the payment of job-seeking benefits upon the date of the applicant’s filing of the unemployment report, but was employed. Since the Plaintiff was a person who was not aged 65 or older as a dependent, he/she satisfies the requirements for individual extension benefits under Article 73(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act. Therefore, the instant disposition

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 8, 11, Eul evidence No. 6, and the fact-finding results with respect to the medical institution at the high school of high school in this court.

1) On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff’s father B (C) was hospitalized in the Gancheon-ro, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Busan, and discharged on October 15, 2014. On October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Gancheon-ro, Seo-gu, Busan, and had an interview with his/her doctor in charge.

2) On October 15, 2014, B hospitalized in the Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, and on November 9, 2014, the Plaintiff discharged on November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff released 2,000,000 won from its account on the same day.

3) On November 11, 2014, B hospitalized in a Excellent Hospital. At the time of hospitalization, the Plaintiff prepared a written agreement for hospitalization, written consent for bearing expenses, etc., and jointly and severally guaranteed the medical expenses B.

4) The Plaintiff transferred from February 1, 2013 to Busan Seo-gu, and had a resident registration address in the above domicile until now. B moved to the above domicile on November 12, 2014, and has a resident registration address in the above domicile until now.

5) B continued hospitalized treatment at a high-quality ginseng hospital on September 8, 2015, and discharged the hospital on September 8, 2015. A medical corporation operating a high-quality ginseng hospital urged the Plaintiff to pay KRW 4,465,910 for unpaid medical expenses incurred during the hospitalization period in December 16, 2015.

6) Meanwhile, according to the Defendant’s job placement services, the Plaintiff applied for a construction environment corporation on October 31, 2014, a monetary loan on November 3, 2014, a pop-up company on November 1, 2014, and a pop-up company on April 201, but did not have been employed.

D. Determination

1) Article 73(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that an eligible recipient who has complied with job placement by the head of an employment security office at least three times and has not been employed until the date of the report of the completion of payment of job-seeking benefits is eligible for individual extension benefits. On the other hand, whether an administrative disposition is illegal in administrative litigation shall be determined based on the relevant statute and fact-finding status at the time when an administrative disposition was taken, and shall not be affected by the amendment or repeal of the relevant statute or changes in actual state (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1811, May 11, 2007)

2) In the instant case, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff is a person who had responded three or more times to job placement by the Defendant, the head of the employment security office, until the completion of the payment of job-seeking benefits, and is not employed. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, Eul-B through 10, 13 through 15, and the fact inquiry results and the entire purport of the pleadings by this court, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff’s dependent at the time of the instant disposition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the instant disposition is lawful.

① There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff continued to have been hospitalized in a long-term care hospital and E-valescent hospital at a high-term university. Rather, in the case of a long-term care hospital for a high-term university, the nursing room employed in the case of a long-term care hospital for a second-term care hospital was the nurse, etc.

② There is no evidence to prove that there was the Plaintiff’s burden of medical expenses incurred in hospitalized treatment at a high-rise hospital B, and rather, G appears to have been borne by the Plaintiff, the South-North and South-North of the Plaintiff.

(3) The application of the instant case and the instant disposition are merely the joint and several sureties regarding the treatment of hospitalization, resident registration, Plaintiff’s deposit withdrawal, and B’s medical expenses in the Evalescent Hospital in the Evalescent Hospital B, and the medical expenses in the Evalescent Hospital.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.