1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits to the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff retired from office in Busan Regional Self-sufficiency Center on May 30, 2014, and was paid KRW 5,626,760, total amount of job-seeking benefits from June 9, 2014 to November 5, 2014.

On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual extended benefits with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant application”). On November 7, 2014, the Defendant rendered a non-recognition of individual extended benefits for employment insurance (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the supply requirements of individual extended benefits under Article 52 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 73(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with an employment insurance examiner on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on January 26, 2015. Accordingly, on April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition for reexamination with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but was dismissed on June 10, 2015.

[Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff’s father’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition and the purport of the entire pleadings and records as to the evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 1 through 4, and the Plaintiff’s father’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition was in a situation where support, such as support, is necessary because it is difficult to independently lead a daily life as a person aged 65 years or older at the time of the instant application, and the Plaintiff actually supported B after September 23, 2014, who was hospitalized in the High University Uniform Hospital.

The Plaintiff, as a result of the applicant’s report of unemployment, has three or more job placements and has not been employed until the completion of the payment of job-seeking benefits, and is at least 65 years of age as a dependent. Thus, the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for receiving individually extended benefits under Article 73(1)1(a) of

Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the above requirements.

Attached Form 3.