1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 1, 2006, the Plaintiff became a member of the Employment Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter below, Nonparty Co., Ltd.) and acquired the insured status, was appointed as a director at a temporary general meeting of shareholders held on December 8, 2009, and was elected as a representative director at the meeting held on the same day. The Plaintiff was registered as the representative director on the registry upon the Plaintiff’s consent.

After December 8, 2012, the Plaintiff was reappointed at the board of directors on December 8, 2012, and was reappointed on December 8, 2015 as a director of the non-party company.

B. Around March 8, 2012, the Defendant notified the non-party company that the Plaintiff would lose the insured status under the Employment Insurance Act by taking office as the representative director of the non-party company on December 8, 2009. On March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted a report on the loss of insured status under the Employment Insurance Act and subsequently lost the insured status under the Employment Insurance Act retroactively on December 8, 2009.

C. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a report on acquisition of insured status with employment insurance to the Defendant, but on July 14, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the report on acquisition of insured status with employment insurance on the ground that the Plaintiff did not constitute a worker who provides labor for the purpose of wages as subordinate to the employer (the following disposition was taken).

On May 12, 2015, the Employment Insurance Review Committee dismissed the request for review on May 12, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion was registered as the representative director of the company of this case, but it was merely a formal and scenic position, and in fact, it was conducted under the direction and supervision of C, the actual owner of the non-party company, and received monthly salary in return, and therefore, it constitutes the insured worker under the Employment Insurance Act.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which is different from this premise, is taken.