logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.1.29. 선고 2018누58556 판결
육아휴직급여부지급처분취소의소
Cases

2018Nu556 The action to revoke the revocation of the installment payment of childcare leave benefits

Plaintiff-Appellant

A

Defendant Appellant

The Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency Head of the Seoul Regional Labor Office

The first instance judgment

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2018Gudan57943 decided July 10, 2018

Conclusion of Pleadings

September 18, 2018

Imposition of Judgment

January 29, 2019

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

On January 15, 2018, the defendant revoked the disposition of a land-based payment of childcare leave benefits to the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The grounds for the Defendant’s assertion in the trial are not different from the allegations in the first instance trial, and the judgment of the first instance court, which accepted the Plaintiff’s request by the Defendant even after re-examination of the submitted evidence together with the Defendant’s assertion, is recognized as legitimate. The reasons for this case are as follows: “family life time limit” after the first instance judgment No. 21 of the first instance judgment No. 3; “No. 6509 of the third instance judgment” (hereinafter “former Employment Insurance Act”); “No. 9”); “temporary leave” in the first instance judgment No. 9 of the first instance judgment; “No. 2 of the first instance judgment”; “No. 9 of the first instance judgment”; “No. 4 of the first instance judgment” in the first instance judgment “within the extinctive prescription period; “No. 6 and 7 of the first instance judgment” in the first instance judgment is cited as the grounds for the first instance judgment, except for the case where “the extinctive prescription period is shorter than the extinctive prescription period”.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground of its ground.

Judges

The presiding judge, appointed judge;

Judge Park Jong-soo

Judges Lee Hyun-woo

arrow