2011Guhap1409 Revocation of revocation of the payment of early re-employment allowance

A

The President of the Central Local Labor Agency

June 30, 2011

July 14, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of early re-employment allowance and site salary for the employment insurance against the Plaintiff on November 22, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After retirement from the management office on January 6, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance to the Defendant on February 16, 2010, and received job-seeking benefits from the Defendant.

B. Since May 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was employed at the office of the management of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on May 1, 2010, and was retired from the above office on September 4, 2010, and was employed at the office of management of the residents living facilities in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 5, 2010 following the date.

C. On November 2, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a claim for early re-employment allowance under Article 64(1) of the Employment Insurance Act with the Defendant on November 2, 2010 while working at the D management office, but the Defendant decided on November 22, 2010 that the Plaintiff would not pay early re-employment allowance on the ground that the period of working at the E company hired by the Plaintiff is less than six months and does not meet the payment criteria for early re-employment allowance (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 84(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the payment criteria for early re-employment allowance shall be defined as "where an employee is employed for not less than six months continuously." In this context, "re-employed business owner" does not mean only the same business owner. Since the Plaintiff was employed in the E company and D management office without being interrupted for not less than six months from May 1, 2010, it constitutes the payment criteria for early re-employment allowance.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

According to Article 64 (1) of the Employment Insurance Act, early re-employment allowances refer to cases where an eligible recipient is re-employed at a stable occupation or self-employed business, and where an eligible recipient is employed for at least six consecutive months on the basis of the day immediately preceding the date of re-employment after the waiting period under Article 49 of the Act, "the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 64 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, which provides for such standards, refers to cases where an eligible recipient is employed for at least 30 consecutive months on the date immediately preceding the date of re-employment after the waiting period under Article 50 of the Act.

The purport of the payment of early re-employment allowance in the Employment Insurance Act is to encourage a stable employment of an eligible recipient of employment insurance as soon as possible, and to facilitate reemployment of an eligible recipient by paying early re-employment allowance to an eligible recipient meeting the requirements for early re-employment allowance, and to effectively operate the employment insurance system by minimizing the period of employment. Accordingly, Article 64(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the criteria for the payment of early re-employment allowance are re-employment in a stable occupation." In light of the purport of the payment of early re-employment allowance, in order to meet the above criteria for the payment of early re-employment allowance, it should be "not simply re-employment" but "re-employment in a stable occupation." Thus, Article 84(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "a stable occupation among the criteria for the payment of early re-employment allowance under Article 64(1) of the Employment Insurance Act is "a stable employment for six months or longer" and thus, it cannot be viewed that an eligible recipient is "a stable employment for six months or more."

In light of the purport of Article 64(1) of the Employment Insurance Act that provides for early re-employment allowance, it is reasonable to view that the phrase “where an employer who has been employed continuously for 6 months or longer” under Article 84(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act is employed continuously for 6 months or longer. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall be the highest judge.

Judge Choi Gyeong-hoon

Judges Kim Gin-dong

A person shall be appointed.