1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On May 31, 2004, the Plaintiff was unemployed on May 15, 2014 while working for a National Assembly member B office. On July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff recognized the Defendant’s entitlement to KRW 180,000 for the fixed benefit payment days and KRW 40,000 for the daily benefit amount, and the Plaintiff was paid job-seeking benefits for 28 days.

On August 11, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was receiving job-seeking benefits, was employed in the National Assembly C Office and served for more than 12 months, applied for the payment of early re-employment allowances to the Defendant on August 17, 2015.

However, on November 30, 2015, the Defendant decided to pay a site price for the Plaintiff’s application for early re-employment allowance on the ground that the business owner of the workplace re-employed to the Plaintiff and the business owner of the last place of employment are the same.

(2) In light of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute; (b) Gap evidence Nos. 1; and (c) Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4; and (c) plaintiff's assertion of legitimacy of the overall purport of the pleadings; (d) labor relations law, the labor relations law should determine whether a specific person with respect to an employer is in a position to substantially and specifically control and decide labor conditions; (c) a member of the National Assembly is in an independent constitutional authority with the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Speaker of the National Assembly; (d) a member of the National Assembly is in an employment and subordinate relationship with a member of the National Assembly; and (e) the conclusion and termination of a labor contract depends on the decision and status of a member of the National Assembly.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff satisfies all the requirements for the payment of early re-employment allowances prescribed in the employment insurance, the instant disposition is unlawful.

Second, Article 108 of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act is an illegal order beyond the delegation scope of the Employment Insurance Act, which is the parent company, and the disposition of this case is unlawful.

It is as stated in the relevant statutes.

Judgment

Article 1 of the Employment Insurance Act shall be necessary for the livelihood of a worker who is unemployed.