1. The Defendant’s disposition of partial payment of childcare leave benefits against the Plaintiff on May 21, 2014 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff became a member of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service and gave birth to his/her child. From February 13, 2012 to February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for childcare leave on 14 occasions in relation to the aforementioned childcare leave and received KRW 9,808,500 from the Defendant for childcare leave.

B. In calculating the aforementioned temporary retirement benefits, the Defendant included basic salary and qualification allowances in ordinary wages, and the bonus, long-term continuous service allowances, meal support expenses, transport support expenses, and customized welfare cards (hereinafter “batch, etc.”) did not include in ordinary wages.

The reply to the application for the difference in childcare leave (No. 1) shall be made on April 13, 2013 to May 12, 2013 by applying for childcare leave benefits for the period of childcare leave from April 13, 2013 to May 14, 2013, and the childcare leave benefits were paid.

He has already known that “within 90 days (excluding the exclusion period) from the date he knows that the disposition has already been taken” during which he may raise an objection against the payment of childcare leave benefits.

C. On April 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for payment of the difference between the temporary retirement benefits for childcare and the amount paid during the period of payment calculated on the basis of ordinary wages, including bonuses, etc. (hereinafter “instant application”). On May 21, 2014, the Defendant issued the following notice to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s claim 1 is merely seeking a difference, not the application for temporary retirement benefits under Article 70(3) of the Employment Insurance Act, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case is merely an instruction reply on the above application, and does not constitute a disposition prescribed in Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s claim for the difference between temporary retirement benefits and childcare benefits is governed by the law.