(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.7.19.선고 2017구합71629 판결

A. On June 15, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was employed in the guard company B around April 2014, retired from office on the ground that he/she retired on June 15, 2016, recognized the Defendant’s eligibility to receive employment insurance benefits of KRW 150 ( November 18, 2016), the daily amount of job-seeking benefits of KRW 43,416, and received job-seeking benefits for KRW 30 days from June 22, 2016 to July 21, 2016. The Plaintiff was re-employed on July 22, 2016, and retired from office as the facility security guard system (hereinafter referred to as “abundler”). The Plaintiff retired from office from the apartment security system of KRW 21,200,000 due to the expiration of a labor contract on July 10, 2016.

D. On September 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for early re-employment allowance with the Defendant on September 22, 2017. On September 22, 2017, the Defendant issued a decision to refuse the payment of early re-employment allowance (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s unemployment occurred during the period of 31 days from the Plaintiff’s temporary retirement to December 1, 2016, from the date of his/her temporary retirement, to the date of his/her temporary retirement, and does not constitute “where he/she continues to be employed for at least 12 months” under Article 64(1) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 84(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 2-4, the purport of whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the disposition and the relevant statutes. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful as follows.

The Plaintiff was recognized as the fixed benefit payment date for 150 days, but actively re-employed at least 1/2 of the fixed benefit payment date while receiving only 30 days of job-seeking benefits, and was re-employed on July 22, 2016. After that, the Plaintiff retired from the aforementioned company on October 31, 2016, and was unemployed for one month from November 1, 2016 to November 12, 2016, but actively conducted job-seeking activities during the said period. However, the Plaintiff continued to be employed at least for at least three months from July 22, 2016 to October 31, 2016, and thus, the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act continued to exist for at least 13 months after being re-employed to the chemical security system for at least 14 months from December 2, 2016 to September 13, 2017.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 64(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that early re-employment allowances shall be paid when an eligible recipient engages in a stable job or a profit-making business, which satisfies the criteria prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 84(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that an eligible recipient shall pay early re-employment allowances in any of the cases where an eligible recipient has been employed for at least 1/2 of the fixed benefit payment days under Article 50 of the Act as of the day immediately before the date immediately preceding the date of re-employment after the waiting period under Article 49 of the Act (main sentence of subparagraph 1) or where an eligible recipient continues to engage in a business for at least 12 months (the main sentence of subparagraph 2).

As can be seen, the purport of the Employment Insurance Act that the Employment Insurance Act pays early re-employment benefits is to minimize the period of job-seeking and to encourage stable re-employment by paying a certain amount of money equivalent to the unpaid part of the amount of job-seeking benefits, regardless of the form of job-seeking benefits, in cases where an eligible recipient becomes able to obtain income from re-employment in a stable manner prior to receiving all job-seeking benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19892, Dec. 8, 201).

2) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the health team, evidence as mentioned above, evidence as mentioned above, evidence as mentioned above, evidence as mentioned in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and evidence Nos. 5 through 8 (including various numbers), and the whole purport of oral argument, the plaintiff cannot be seen as constituting "where the plaintiff has been continuously employed for more than 12 months" under Article 84 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, and thus, the requirements for payment of early re-employment allowances have not been satisfied. Accordingly, the disposition of this case on the premise that the disposition of this case is legitimate,

① The point at which the fixed benefit payment days prescribed in Article 84(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act falls under 1/2 of the fixed benefit payment days prescribed in Article 84(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act shall be from June 15, 2016 to 75 days from June 15, 2016, for which the Plaintiff applied for eligibility for benefits (i.e., 150 days in fixed benefit payment days). The employment of the re-employed company during the said period shall continue to be maintained for 12 months. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff retired from flus re-employed on July 22, 2016, to October 31, 2016.

② The term of the Plaintiff’s labor contract is written as three months from July 22, 2016 to July 31, 2016 (Article 2), and it is written as “not applying implied re-contract” (Article 2(3)), and the work excellent person may convert into one-year contract position (Article 6(3)). Thus, the Plaintiff, in light of the content of the above labor contract, seems to have been sufficiently anticipated that the contract may not be renewed before retirement from the above company.

③ From November 1, 2016 to December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was unemployed for 31 days from the date of withdrawal from the flusium. However, given that there were no circumstances to deem that there was a temporary holiday or statutory holiday for which job-seeking was practically difficult during the said period, the period is too long to deem such period to be the period for job-seeking activities. Moreover, there is no specific evidence proving that the Plaintiff actively provided job-seeking activities to find employment in another place of business during the said period. Therefore, the continuity of employment during the said period is severed.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation on the ground that the disposition of this case is illegal is dismissed as it is without merit.