1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of disposition;

A. On November 27, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with Sung-gu, Changwon-si B (hereinafter “instant company”) on and after November 27, 2018 (the period of employment contract: from November 27, 2018 to December 31, 2018) and worked until December 11, 2018.

(B) On December 11, 2018, the Plaintiff did not work from December 12, 2018 after the Plaintiff was punished for a dispute on the grounds of D and remaining business owners of the instant company.

On January 17, 2019, the instant company reported the loss of insured status of the Plaintiff’s employment insurance on the ground of the date of loss of insured status of employment insurance to the president of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Foundation (hereinafter “Defendant”) affiliated with the Defendant, as “ January 1, 2019,” and on the ground of loss as “the termination of the contract.”

C. On January 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a claim to confirm the insured status of the employment insurance with the head of the Changwon District Office of Busan Employment and Labor seeking to change the ground for the Plaintiff’s loss of insured status from the “Termination of the contract” to “unjustifiable dismissal.”

On February 20, 2019, the Defendant issued a disposition against the Plaintiff to correct the reason for loss from the date of loss of the insured status of the Plaintiff’s employment insurance from “ January 1, 2019” to “ December 12, 2018” and “the termination of the contract” to “individual circumstances” on the following grounds:

(2) On December 1, 2018, the Plaintiff’s last working day was deemed as December 1, 2018 and the date of loss of insured status was corrected to “ December 12, 2018.” However, considering the fact that the Plaintiff sent to the workplace a letter of attendance at the workplace, the Plaintiff did not express his/her intention to work, and the Defendant was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on suspicion of violation of the Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff’s assertion of dismissal without any justifiable reason is difficult to recognize. In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s last working day of the claimant is deemed as the date of the Plaintiff’s employment contract, and the date of the Plaintiff’s loss of insured status was corrected to “the date of the Plaintiff’s loss of insured status” as “the termination of the contract for loss of insured status, which was already reported as the date of termination of the employment contract.”