1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 12,625,200 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from August 30, 2019.

Basic Facts

From June 1, 2008 to April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff served respectively as a public official in a indefinite contract position, and from May 1, 2014 to March 6, 2019.

The Plaintiff subscribed to employment insurance during the period in which he/she was in the position of an indefinite contract and paid monthly insurance premium, and did not actually subscribe to employment insurance with the Labor Welfare Service during the period in which he/she was in the position of a public official. However, the Plaintiff was paid only the remainder after deducting money in the name of the monthly insurance premium from the Young-gun for the said period.

On November 28, 2018, the Plaintiff gave birth to a child and used the childbirth leave from November 23, 2018 to February 20, 2019, and from February 21, 2019 to March 4, 2019, the Plaintiff retired on March 6, 2019.

On March 2019, the Plaintiff applied for unemployment benefits to the Labor Welfare Service, but was rejected on the ground that the Plaintiff was not subscribed to employment insurance.

On April 3, 2019, the Plaintiff claimed that the branch office of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation request the verification of insured status as a public official for fixed-term employment insurance and the retroactive treatment of the report of withdrawal from employment. However, on April 16, 2019, the Plaintiff received a retroactive non-recognition disposition from the above branch office, and the Plaintiff filed a request for the revocation of the above disposition with the Ministry of Labor (the claim for the revocation of non-recognition of the application for verification of retroactive acquisition of insured status with employment insurance). However, on June 11, 2019, the Plaintiff was dismissed from the claim by the Employment Insurance Review Board.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the argument of the parties concerned, although the plaintiff expressed his intention to subscribe to employment insurance, the plaintiff suffered losses not to receive unemployment benefits due to the negligence of employees in charge of the defendant employment insurance, as the plaintiff did not subscribe to employment insurance.

Therefore, the defendant is an employee of the defendant.