1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that he retired from B University upon termination of the contract period, and applied for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance to the Defendant on March 22, 2019.

B. On April 1, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision not to grant eligibility for benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “if the Plaintiff was registered as a business operator but failed to do so, he/she shall submit either a business suspension certificate or a business closure certificate within seven days from the date of application for eligibility for benefits, but the Plaintiff did not submit it due to the absence of the intention of business suspension or closure.”

C. On July 11, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with an employment insurance examiner, but the said examiner dismissed the request. The Plaintiff re-appealed to the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but the said Committee dismissed the request on November 6, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of business registration is not the Plaintiff, but C Co., Ltd. and D (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant companies”), and there is no room for the Plaintiff to suspend or discontinue business as the Plaintiff was not a business operator. Although the Plaintiff was the representative of each of the instant companies, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was in an employment status since he did not perform his duties regularly and did not receive any remuneration.

Nevertheless, the defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. 1) Determination 1) Whether the Plaintiff, the representative of each of the instant companies, is deemed to have registered its business or not, the former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 237 of December 31, 2018; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance

Article 92 (6) shall apply to an eligible recipient under tax-related Acts.