The meaning of the employment insurance system under the Employment Insurance Act and the meaning of "insured" under Article 17 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act where the insured does not leave from employment due to the adjustment of employment.

Employment maintenance support payment stipulated in Article 16(1) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 17(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18146, Nov. 29, 2003) means not only a business crisis such as shortage of raw materials, reduction of production and receiving amount, reduction of sales, inventory accumulated, but also a business crisis such as reduction of business scale, business rationalization, manufacturing methods, change of organization structure, etc., a business owner whose adjustment of employment was inevitable due to the occurrence of surplus labor force in the company, but also a business owner who takes employment maintenance measures such as temporary suspension, training, temporary retirement, replacement of human resources, etc. in order to continuously maintain employment of workers, which is an amount paid to support the business owner. In light of the significance of the employment maintenance support payment system, it refers to not only the case where the insured worker is not subject to employment adjustment but also the case where the insured worker is not subject to the entire employment maintenance measure.

Article 16(1) of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 17(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18146, Nov. 29, 2003)

Yong Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Chang-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of Busan Regional Labor Administration

Busan High Court Decision 2004Nu5140 decided June 3, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 16 (1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the Minister of Labor may provide necessary assistance to a business owner under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, in cases where the business owner, whose adjustment is inevitable due to business fluctuations, decrease in the scale of industrial structure, etc. due to business suspension or other measures for safety of workers, etc., and Article 17 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18146, Nov. 29, 2003; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the Minister of Labor shall provide that the business owner shall take measures for the maintenance of employment for the insured who are employed in the relevant business to reduce the amount of employment adjustment during the period of employment maintenance measures, and shall provide that the Minister of Labor shall pay the employment maintenance support to the insured who are employed in the relevant business without reducing the amount of employment adjustment during the period of employment maintenance measures, such as shortage of raw materials, reduction in quantity of production and receiving orders, sales reduction, inventory of business crisis, business scale, business rationalization, change in production methods, and labor change.

In light of the significance of the employment maintenance support system, "the insured" under the above provision refers to the whole insured of the workplace including the insured who is not subject to employment maintenance measures, as well as the insured under the measure of employment maintenance.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts based on the adopted evidence, and determined that the above disposition of refusal cannot be deemed as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, just because the defendant rejected the payment of the employment maintenance support payment to other insured workers on the ground of the plaintiff's employment maintenance support payment for the above three insured workers on the ground that the above three workers were not voluntarily retired or retired upon termination of the employment contract period. Thus, although the above three workers were not insured, they cannot seek payment of the employment maintenance support payment for the insured workers subject to employment maintenance measures as long as the plaintiff was adjusted by the means of leaving their jobs during the employment maintenance measure period, and that the above disposition of refusal cannot be deemed as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

Examining the above legal principles and related evidence in light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, or omission of misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 16 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 17 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act and the legal principles as to deviation or abuse of discretion, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the precedents pointed out in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked as they differ from this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ko Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)