2019Guhap11774 The revocation of the revocation of the installment payment of childcare leave benefits.

A

The President of the Gwangju Regional Labor Agency

August 29, 2019

September 26, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On April 30, 2019, the defendant revoked a decision on the payment of land for childcare benefits to the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

1. Details of the disposition;

A. While working at the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation’s regional headquarters B, the Plaintiff used childcare leave for 28 days from February 18, 2019 to March 17, 2019 for the same child, and for 2 days from April 9, 2019 to April 10, 2019.

B. On April 26, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for childcare leave with the Defendant. On April 30, 2019, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the said application against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was not granted childcare leave for at least 30 days pursuant to Article 70(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 16557, Aug. 27, 2019; hereinafter the same).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 19-4 subparag. 3 of the former Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act (amended by Act No. 1658, Aug. 27, 2019; hereinafter “former Equal Employment Opportunity Act”) provides that childcare leave may be used in installments once. Since the Plaintiff was granted a total of 30 days of childcare leave, the Plaintiff constitutes “insured who is granted childcare leave for 30 days or more” under Article 70(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act. Nevertheless, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff was not granted childcare leave for 30 days or more.

B. Determination

In light of the legislative intent of the childcare leave benefits system, the case where the Plaintiff’s return of the application for childcare leave benefits cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for childcare leave benefits cannot be filed against the Defendant because the period of childcare leave does not continuous 30 days and the period of each divided childcare leave falls short of 30 days. The Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted.

1) In the case of private workplace, childcare leave is generally operated in a stateless manner, and an employee suffers from economic difficulties in the period of childcare, as well as an increase in the economic burden due to childcare. If there is no adequate economic support for the period of childcare, an employee shall file an application for childcare leave with his/her employer, and furthermore, his/her early childbirth will further be avoided. Therefore, the purpose of payment of childcare leave benefits is to help the economic stability of the employee during the period of childcare leave.

In addition, limiting eligibility for childcare leave benefits in cases where childcare leave is granted for a long period of 30 days or more under the former Employment Insurance Act, the legislative intent seems to be the legislator’s intention to exclude the payment of childcare leave benefits from the recipients of childcare leave benefits in balance with the financial soundness of the employment insurance finance, etc., in cases where childcare leave is used for a short period of less than 30 days under such legislative purpose.

In light of the above legislative intent, it is difficult to view that childcare leave benefits should be paid to a worker who has not been granted childcare leave for at least 30 consecutive days.

2) Furthermore, according to Article 19(1) of the former Equal Employment Opportunity Act, an employee may take childcare leave for a period of up to one year to raise his/her children under the age of eight or lower, or for a period of up to one year, and may use childcare leave for up to one year for a period of up to eight years for the first time. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the period of divided childcare leave ought to be added up. In such a case, the childcare leave benefits may be paid to the extreme use of childcare leave by dividing the childcare leave for up to 15 days by the amount of 0 years and 8 years of age. This seems to have not contributed to the achievement of the legislative purpose of the employee’s livelihood stability.

In addition, Article 70(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that childcare leave benefits shall be applied within 12 months from the first month after the date childcare leave begins, barring any special circumstance. However, if childcare leave benefits are paid in installments for one child as alleged by the Plaintiff, it can be interpreted that childcare leave benefits should be paid in excess of 30 days after the total of the period, if childcare leave benefits should be paid in excess of the period. Thus, it is against the purport of setting the period of application for childcare leave (if childcare leave benefits are paid in excess of the period, it may be interpreted that the sum of the period should be added, and the sum of the period of application for childcare leave benefits should be deducted when calculating the amount of childcare leave benefits. However, the amount of payment shall be the amount of payment for the period of childcare leave benefits for less than 30 days (if childcare leave benefits are paid in excess of 30 days after the division, it is possible to claim the amount of childcare leave benefits for that period).

4. 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 shall be appointed from among judges.

Judges Gincheon-soo

Attorney Won-won

A person shall be appointed.