(영문) 부산고등법원 2017.5.12. 선고 2016누23585 판결

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. On November 7, 2014, the defendant revoked the non-recognition of individually extended benefits against the plaintiff on employment insurance for the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance. As such, it shall be cited by the main text of

2. Additional determination

1) The plaintiff's assertion

On October 14, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a statement of opinion (Evidence A 12) with respect to B, and on October 15, 2014, from 1,056,558, the Plaintiff’s wife paid KRW 300,000 to 756,558, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 756,558, and on November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff visited H Hospital to provide medical consultation and filed a request for medical treatment. In so doing, it can be found that the Plaintiff supported B at the time of the instant disposition.

2) Determination

The evidence No. 13 is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s wife paid KRW 300,000 to the Plaintiff’s 1,056,558 medical expenses incurred in relation to the Plaintiff’s 1,05,558 won on October 15, 2014 (the evidence No. 13 submitted by the Plaintiff at the trial is the medical expenses account statement of KRW 1,543,510, which was re-issued on June 9, 2016, and there is no payer of the medical expenses. Rather, if the fact-finding results on the Plaintiff’s 15,16 evidence and the first instance court’s ELPus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s 14,510,500 won paid on October 14, 2014 and the Plaintiff’s 14, which is the subject of the Plaintiff’s 14,010 receipts, and the Plaintiff’s 14, which is the subject of the Plaintiff’s 14, as the subject of the receipt No.

As alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s branch bears part of the medical expenses of the Plaintiff on October 15, 2014, and the Plaintiff filed an application for medical treatment at H Hospital for consultation with respect to B on November 7, 2014, and received a written opinion on October 14, 2014, the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s overall purport of oral argument as well as the medical expenses of B and the medical expenses before November 12, 2014, were stated to the effect that the Plaintiff had borne the Plaintiff’s remaining births and their wife at the time of hospitalization (see subparagraph 9), and that the Plaintiff’s application for medical treatment was not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had provided education and information to the Defendant at the time of hospitalization at the G Hospital (see subparagraph 14 subparag. 2, 14, and 14, 207, the Plaintiff’s remaining births and 14, which were the Plaintiff’s nursing hospital’s dependents at the time of the Plaintiff’s treatment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.