Plaintiff (Law Firm Purpose, Attorney Kim Ba-hee, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office Seoul Gangnam District Office

September 19, 2017

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

On March 8, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of site pay for childcare leave benefits and the disposition of site pay for maternity leave benefits to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was working for the Korean Climate Group, was given maternity leave from October 1, 2014 to December 29, 2014, and used the childcare leave for a period from October 1, 2014 to December 29, 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was granted childcare leave for a period from December 30 to December 29, 2015.

B. On February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for payment of childcare leave benefits during the above period of childcare leave, and on March 3, 2017, applied for payment of maternity leave benefits during the above period of maternity leave.

C. On March 8, 2017, the Defendant: (a) filed an application with the Plaintiff for the payment of maternity leave benefits after the lapse of 12 months from the end of the maternity leave; and (b) filed an application for the payment of childcare leave benefits after the lapse of 12 months from the end of the childcare leave; (c) issued a land-based payment of childcare leave benefits (hereinafter “instant land-based payment of childcare leave benefits”); and (d) a land-based payment of maternity leave benefits (hereinafter “instant payment of maternity leave benefits”); and (e) issued a housing site-based payment of maternity leave benefits (hereinafter

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The primary argument

Considering Article 36(2) of the Constitution that provides for the duty of the State to endeavor to protect maternity, Article 32(4) of the Constitution that provides that female workers shall be subject to special protection and shall not be discriminated against in terms of employment, wages, and working conditions, Article 32(4) of the Constitution that provides that childcare leave benefits and the purpose of the system of maternity leave, which is introduced to prevent women’s career interruption, Article 107 of the Employment Insurance Act provides for three years of the extinctive prescription period for claims for childcare leave benefits and maternity leave benefits, but Article 70(2) and Article 75 subparag. 2 of the Employment Insurance Act that limits the period of application for childcare leave benefits and maternity leave benefits within 12 months after the date childcare leave or maternity leave is terminated, it is reasonable to interpret that the Plaintiff’s application period for childcare leave benefits and maternity leave benefits under Article 70(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is only a provision providing for punishment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s request for payment of childcare leave benefits and maternity leave benefits under Article 75 subparag. 1 of the Employment Insurance Act should be revoked.

2) Preliminary assertion

In the case of maternity leave benefits, Article 75 subparag. 2 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the period of application is the requirement for direct payment. However, in the case of childcare leave benefits, Article 70 subparag. 2 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the separate period of application shall be separately provided, not each subparagraph of Article 70 of the Employment Insurance Act, and even in the case of childcare leave benefits, Article 70(1)3 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the payment requirement for the period of application is the case of maternity leave benefits before amendment by Act No. 10895, such as the case of maternity leave benefits before amendment by Act No. 10895, and Article 70(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides for the period of application. The meaning of “application” under Article 70(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides for the exclusion of the above provision after the above amendment and its new provision for the period of application. In light of the above, it is reasonable to interpret that the Defendant’s request for childcare leave benefits satisfies the Plaintiff’s request for payment of childcare leave benefits prior to the expiration of 70 years.

B. Determination

1) Article 70(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that “The Minister of Employment and Labor shall pay childcare leave benefits prescribed in Article 19 of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act (hereinafter “Equal Employment Opportunity”) to an insured worker who meets all the following requirements for at least 30 days (excluding the period overlapping with the period of maternity leave prescribed in Article 74 of the Labor Standards Act),” and subparagraph 1 provides that “the insured worker shall have an insured total period of at least 180 days under Article 41 before the beginning of the period of childcare leave” in subparagraph 2 that “the insured worker shall not be granted childcare leave for at least 30 days or whose working hours have not been reduced by at least 30 days before the end of the period prescribed in the main sentence of Article 19-2 of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act” and Article 19(2) of the same Act provides that “Any person who intends to receive childcare leave benefits before or after the end of the period prescribed in the proviso to paragraph (1) of the same Article shall apply for the same Act within 7 months after the date.”

2) In light of the contents of the relevant statutes, such as the Employment Insurance Act, the legislative intent, amendment process, the form and system thereof, and the meaning and nature of childcare leave benefits, etc., the respective application period of this case is reasonable to deem that the procedural requirements are stipulated in order to receive childcare leave benefits or maternity leave benefits. Thus, an application for childcare leave benefits benefits or maternity leave benefits, etc. granted after the application period under the respective application period of this case does not meet the procedural requirements, and thus, a site-based disposition issued by an administrative agency on the grounds of such disposition is lawful (see Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu81972, May 11, 2017).

A) Article 9 of the Framework Act on Social Security (hereinafter “social security benefits”) provides that “All citizens shall have the right to receive social security benefits (hereinafter “social security benefits”) as prescribed by social security-related statutes, and determination of the existence or scope of the right to receive social security benefits can be deemed “social security-related statutes.” Meanwhile, the Employment Insurance Act provides as part of the social insurance system with the aim of stabilizing the livelihood of workers and promoting their job-seeking activities, which provides for relief by allocating the burden to many people through national insurance technology. Although childcare leave benefits equivalent to social security benefits and maternity leave benefits (which were “ initial maternity leave benefits,” but whose name was changed after revision; hereinafter “child care leave benefits”) are mandatory provisions in such statutes, and the existence or scope of the right is determined as prescribed by the employment insurance statutes. According to the Employment Insurance Act and subordinate statutes, childcare leave benefits and maternity leave benefits shall be paid to the head of the relevant employment insurance agency after reviewing whether or not the employer and the employee’s payment of the insurance premium should meet the requirements for payment of childcare leave benefits through the employment insurance policy’s account.

나) 육아휴직 급여와 출산전후휴가 급여는 고용보험법이 2001. 8. 14. 법률 제6509호로 개정되면서 신설되었는데, 위 고용보험법(이하 ‘구 고용보험법’이라 한다) 제55조의2 는 육아휴직 급여에 대하여, 제55조의7 은 출산전후휴가 급여에 대하여 각 규정하면서 현재 시행되는 고용보험법 제70조 또는 제75조 와 유사한 취지의 요건을 규정하였다. 다만 구 고용보험법 제55조의2 제1항 제3호 본문은 육아휴직 급여의 지급을 위해 갖추어야 할 요건으로 ‘육아휴직개시일 이후 1월부터 종료일 이후 6월 이내에 신청할 것’을 규정하고, 구 고용보험법 제55조의7 제2호 본문 은 ‘산전후휴가종료일부터 6월 이내에 신청할 것’을 규정하였다(다만, 동기간 이내에 대통령령이 정하는 사유로 육아휴직 급여 및 산전후휴가 급여를 신청할 수 없었던 자는 그 사유 종료 후 30일 이내에 신청하여야 한다는 단서 규정을 두었고, 이하 개정된 각 규정에서도 동일한 취지의 단서 규정을 두고 있다). 그런데 위 두 급여에 관하여 고용보험법이 2005. 5. 31. 법률 제7565호로 개정되면서 육아휴직 또는 출산전후휴가의 각 종료일로부터 ‘12월 이내’에 신청할 것이라고 신청기간을 연장하여 규정하였고, 피보험자가 유산·사산휴가를 받은 경우에도 출산전후휴가를 받은 경우와 동일하게 급여를 지급하도록 구 고용보험법 제55조의7 에 유산·사산휴가를 받은 경우가 추가되었으며(출산전후휴가 급여의 경우와 요건이 동일하여 유산·사산휴가의 종료일로부터 12월 이내에 신청할 것이라는 요건도 당연히 적용된다), 2007. 5. 11. 법률 제8429호로 전부 개정되면서 육아휴직 급여는 제70조에, 출산전후휴가 급여등은 제75조 에 규정하며 육아휴직 급여에 관한 규정을 출산전후휴가 급여등에 그대로 준용하는 등 위 두 급여에 대하여 유사한 내용 및 체제로 규정하였다. 다만 고용보험법이 2011. 7. 21. 법률 제10895호로 개정되면서 제73조의2 로 육아휴직 대신 근로시간 단축을 하는 근로자에게 근로시간 단축에 따른 소득 감소액을 보전하는 육아기 근로시간 단축 급여를 신설하고, 그 규정과 동일한 체제로 육아휴직 급여 중 신청기간에 관하여 제70조 제1항 제3호 의 규정을 삭제한 후 제70조 제2항 을 신설하여 규정하였다. 이와 같이 출산전후휴가 급여는 처음 도입되어 규정된 구 고용보험법 제55조의7 제2호 에서 ‘신청기간 내에 신청할 것’을 ‘요건’이라고 규정한 이래로 신청기간을 연장하면서까지 계속하여 동일한 체계로 ‘요건’이라 규정하여 온 점 등을 고려하여 보면, 출산전후휴가 급여등은 고용보험법 제75조 제2호 의 명시적 규정을 통하여 ‘신청기간 내에 신청할 것’을 절차적 요건으로 규정하였다고 봄이 상당하다. 한편, 위에서 본 육아휴직 급여 및 출산전후휴가 급여등에 대한 각 고용보험법의 규정 및 그 개정 경과 등과 위 두 급여를 두게 된 취지 등에 비추어 보면, 육아휴직 급여의 신청기간에 관한 규정의 체제가 출산전후휴가 급여의 경우와 다소 다르다 하더라도 그 점만으로 위 두 급여에서 ‘신청기간 내 신청할 것’이라는 규정이 가지는 법적 성격과 의미마저 달라졌다고 보기 어렵고, 명시적 규정을 통하여 ‘신청기간 내 신청할 것’을 절차적 요건으로 규정한 출산전후휴가 급여의 경우와 동일하게 육아휴직 급여의 경우에도 고용보험법 제70조 제2항 에서 정하는 ‘신청기간 내 육아휴직 급여 신청을 할 것’을 그 절차적 요건으로 규정하였다고 봄이 상당하다(만약 육아휴직 급여와 출산전후휴가 급여의 각 신청기간 규정을 달리 해석한다면, 출산이 여성에게 미치는 육체적·정신적 고통의 정도와 그 회복의 필요성을 고려하여 출산을 한 여성에게만 부여되는 출산전후휴가 급여의 신청이 남녀 구분 없이 허용되는 육아휴직 급여의 신청에 비하여 절차적 요건을 가중한 것으로 되는 불균형이 발생한다). 이와 같이 고용보험법에서 육아휴직 급여와 출산전후휴가 급여등에 대하여 ‘신청기간 내 신청할 것’이라는 절차적 요건을 두게 된 것은 앞서 살펴본 바와 같이 사회보험제도의 방식으로 지급되는 사회보장급여로서의 육아휴직 급여 및 출산전후휴가 급여의 특수성을 고려하여 육아휴직 급여 및 출산전후휴가 급여의 경우 각 종료일로부터 12개월이라는 합리적 기간 동안의 급여 신청권을 보장하는 한편 그 신청기간을 제한함으로써 고용보험기금의 재정적 안정을 확보하려는 데 있는 것으로 보인다.

C) Article 107(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that “The right to receive childcare leave benefits or maternity or maternity leave benefits shall expire if it is not exercised within three years.” Article 107(2) of the same Act provides that the interruption of extinctive prescription shall be interrupted upon a beneficiary’s request. As seen earlier, in order to be able to receive childcare leave benefits or maternity leave benefits, the extinctive prescription shall also meet the procedural requirements for “where a beneficiary applies for childcare leave benefits or maternity leave benefits within the filing period” under Article 70(2) or Article 75 subparag. 2 of the Employment Insurance Act. Since a beneficiary who failed to meet the requirements is no longer entitled to childcare leave benefits or maternity leave benefits, there is no room to apply the above extinctive prescription provisions after the expiration of the application period. On the other hand, in cases of a beneficiary who satisfies all the requirements by filing an application for childcare leave benefits or maternity leave benefits within the application period, the extinctive prescription period shall be interrupted only by the above provision on childcare leave benefits or maternity leave benefits, etc., and the provision on the extinctive prescription period shall still be established through examination or determination of extinctive prescription.

D) Although the former Employment Insurance Act is a matter of the Employment Insurance Act, in a case where an application for childcare leave benefits was filed at the time three years have not passed since the date of delivery, the Supreme Court determined that the disposition that did not pay childcare leave benefits was lawful on the ground that the application period set by the Employment Insurance Act was excessive (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du19420, Dec. 24, 2008).

3) Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the health care unit, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for payment of maternity leave benefits on March 3, 2017, which was after the lapse of 12 months from December 29, 2014 when maternity leave was terminated, and the Plaintiff filed an application for payment of childcare leave benefits on February 24, 2017, which was after the lapse of 12 months from December 29, 2015 when childcare leave was terminated. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate for the Defendant to file the application period, and the Plaintiff’s primary and preliminary 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.

Judge Yu Jin-dong (Presiding Judge)