2010Guhap2984 Revocation of the determination of a site for employment maintenance support payment

A Stock Company

The Administrator of the Daejeon Regional Labor Agency

May 4, 2011

June 1, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s decision on the payment of sites for employment insurance for temporary closure allowances as of March 26, 2009 and November 25, 2009 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 6, 2008, the period of suspension from December 5, 2008 to December 31, 2008 was 208,12,6,7 of the same month; on the 16th of the same month; on the 30th of the same month; on the 30th of the same month; on the 30th of the same month; on the 31st of the same month, the standard for the payment of wages during the suspension period was 70% of the basic salary + 100% of the bonus + 100% of the total allowance; on the 31st of the same month; on the 31st of the same month; on the 30th of the same month, the method for human resources utilization after suspension was submitted to the Defendant after filing a report on the employment maintenance plan to return to all the workplace.

B. After that, on December 30, 2008, the Daejeon Factory changed the period of suspension of employment from December 6, 2008 to January 31, 2009 during the above plan of suspension of employment, and submitted a report of change of employment maintenance measures (temporary suspension) to add four days ( January 2, 2009; January 3, the same month; 4. the same month; 28.) as of the date of suspension of employment and its additional suspension of employment for the Defendant on the following grounds: (i) the period of suspension of employment under the above plan of suspension of employment (temporary suspension of employment) and (ii) the period of suspension of employment for the Defendant on March 17, 200, and (iii) the period of suspension of employment for the Defendant on March 18, 2009, each of which would be less than the period of suspension of employment for the Defendant on a regular basis, and (iv) the Defendant would not be deemed to have paid the amount of retirement subsidy to the Defendant on March 16, 20008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 5, 6 evidence, Eul 1 (including additional numbers), witness E's witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On December 2, 2008 and January 2009, the Daejeon Factory was inevitable to adjust its employment due to the increase in stock, and continued to maintain employment by continuing to be suspended. B, etc., which was retired from office through a low-income and retirement program conducted every year since 2000, and is not a severance from employment due to business reasons or the abolition of other departments. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions by the Defendant is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 21(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 990, Jan. 27, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) provides that where a business owner whose adjustment in employment is inevitable due to business fluctuations, such as business suspension, etc. due to changes in industrial structure, etc., and takes other measures for employment security of workers, the Minister of Labor may provide necessary support to the business owner, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22269, Jul. 12, 2010) provides that the Minister of Labor shall, where the business owner who has been inevitable to adjust employment takes measures for the maintenance of employment of the insured workers through such employment adjustment during the period of employment maintenance measures, pay employment maintenance support to the insured workers for the period of employment maintenance measures, such as shortage of raw materials and quantity of production, reduction of sales volume, decrease in stock management, reduction in the scale of employment, and decrease in the number of workers, etc.

The meaning of the employment maintenance support system and the meaning of the employment relationship between workers and employers are comprehensively defined as the termination of employment relationship between workers and employers, and it is not always limited to the conversion, placement, dismissal, etc. of human resources following business fluctuations, industrial structure changes, etc. (Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act), and in light of the purpose of establishing the Employment Insurance Act (Article 1 of the Act) that promotes workers' livelihood stability and job seeking activities by promoting their job stabilization and job-seeking activities and contributing to economic and social development, the term "where the insured is not retired from employment by the employment adjustment" under Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act refers to the case where an employer does not artificially leave employment during the period of employment maintenance measures, such as retirement or disciplinary action based on the expiration of the retirement age, and the ground for employment maintenance support for the so-called voluntary severance from employment by the employer according to the employer's intent, not by day-to day or free will, constitutes ground for employment adjustment.

2) On the premise of such a legal doctrine, the Plaintiff is implementing a retirement program with low-level employees with the objective of increasing the number of employees’ personal achievements and holding potential for future growth at the level below 10% of the number of employees who are lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees and were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees and were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees and were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees and were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees who were lower than the number of employees who were reported due to the Plaintiff’s recommendation to resign.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge, judge and officer

Judges Lee Jin

Judge Lee Jae-il

(i) dismissal;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.