1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the same contents as those stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act to three pages 3 of the judgment of the first instance, “ May 30, 2016” as “ April 28, 2016” and adding the same contents as stated in paragraph (2). Therefore, the same shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article

2. The addition;

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that onboard ship reserve personnel are unpaid leave of absence, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not meet the eligibility requirements for job-seeking benefits under the Employment Insurance Act, on the ground that, inasmuch as onboard ship reserve personnel are ordinarily determined by the shipping companies, etc. to serve in onboard ship reserve personnel, they are engaged in moving, barring special circumstances, and repeated boarding and leaving a ship according to the shipping company’s boarding plan and sending leave from the landing to the next boarding of a ship, and thus, they cannot be deemed as unpaid leave of absence until boarding after leaving a

However, taking into account the following circumstances, which can be recognized as comprehensively considering the purport of the entire arguments in the items of evidence Nos. 6, 7, 10, 15 (including the provisional number), namely, ① the termination of an employment contract at the time of leaving a ship by entering into an employment contract with a shipping company at each time of boarding service; ② the receipt of retirement allowances corresponding thereto at each time of termination of each employment contract due to boarding service; ③ the payment of employment insurance premium in the case of not being on board service; ④ the operation schedule is set by the shipping company; ④ the operation schedule is set by the shipping company; there is a high possibility of change in the schedule; thus, the period can be prolonged regardless of the intention of onboard ship reserve service personnel; ultimately, the period after leaving the Plaintiff’s boarding and leaving a ship should be considered as not the unpaid leave of absence but the unemployment status.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff.