2015Nu20152. Revocation of the disposition of the difference payment of lands for childcare leave benefits

A

The Administrator of Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency

Busan District Court Decision 2014Guhap21999 Decided December 26, 2014

March 27, 2015

August 21, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition to return the payment of childcare leave benefits to the Plaintiff on May 28, 2014 is revoked. 2. The purport of the appeal is to revoke

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of the lower court’s judgment as to this case is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, the same is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion

A person who intends to receive childcare leave shall apply for benefits within 12 months from the first month after the commencement date of childcare leave (Article 70(2) of the Employment Insurance Act). The Plaintiff filed the instant application seeking the difference between childcare leave and childcare leave until May 19, 2014 after one year from the expiration date of childcare leave ( March 26, 2012). Thus, the instant disposition that rejected the application is lawful. However, the determination is lawful.

The plaintiff filed an application for temporary retirement benefits for childcare from July 12, 201 to March 31, 2012. Meanwhile, the defendant's above assertion is understood to the purport that the plaintiff should comply with the application period under the Employment Insurance Act as of May 19, 2014, on which the plaintiff filed an application for temporary retirement benefits for childcare benefits. However, the plaintiff's application for payment of the above difference is seeking a difference equivalent to the difference between the already paid childcare leave benefits and the legitimate childcare leave benefits. Thus, it is reasonable to determine whether the application period under the Employment Insurance Act should be based on the date of application for temporary retirement benefits for the first time.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge, Park Jae-soo

Judges Lee Jae-soo

More than a judge;