2014Guhap12543 Recognition of Eligibility for Unemployment Benefits

A

The Administrator of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office 1)

May 1, 2015

May 22, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on January 6, 2015 as the withdrawal of the lawsuit. On January 6, 2015, the litigation costs incurred after the application for the designation of the date was filed shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall conduct the procedure for paying unemployment benefits to the plaintiff and confirm the recognition of the eligibility for receiving unemployment benefits (the purport of the above claim is to state the purport of the claim stated in the complaint).

1. Case history

According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

A. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and reported the address to “C 15, Nam-gu, Incheon.”

B. On October 24, 2014, this court sent a notice of the date for pleading to the Plaintiff on the date for pleading in the first place of pleading (on November 21, 2014, to the Plaintiff’s address), and the Plaintiff received directly the notice of the date for pleading on November 29, 2014. However, the Plaintiff was not present on the date for pleading in the Republic of Korea on November 21, 2014, and the Defendant’s litigation performer did not appear on the date for pleading in the Republic of Korea on November 21, 2014, but did not appear on the date for pleading in the Republic of Korea. This court sent the notice to the Plaintiff on November 21, 2014 (on December 14, 2014), to the Plaintiff to appear on the date for pleading in the second place of pleading (on December 14:30, 2014), and this court sent the said notice to the address indicated on the date for pleading in the complaint (see Article 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Act).

D. On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff was not present at the date of pleading opened on the date of pleading held on December 14:30, 2014, and the Defendant litigation performer was present at the date of pleading, but did not present

E. As such, the Plaintiff did not file an application for the designation of the date within one month from the date of pleading for the second absence, and on March 31, 2015, submitted documents under the name of “the petition for recovery of the right to appeal of the applicant,” stating the purport of “the right to appeal of the applicant by the Seoul High Court ruling on the petitioner,” to this court.

F. The Plaintiff asserted that he/she was hospitalized in the E Hospital located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, from November 201, 2014 to December 19, 2014 through the “written request for recovery of his/her right of appeal” and stated the place for delivery as “F 103, Nam-gu, Incheon, 2014.”

2. Determination:

A. First of all, as to what the judgment was sought through the “written application for recovery of the right to appeal” submitted by the Plaintiff on March 31, 2015, the health care room and the claim for recovery of the right to appeal can be sought through Articles 345 through 348 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which are applicable mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation procedure (see Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act) where the right to recover the right to appeal is not separately granted to the parties, and where the parties were unable to comply with the period of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the parties, the subsequent application for appeal is only possible (see Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

Therefore, this Court does not have any judgment on the plaintiff's complaint submitted on July 9, 2014. Thus, it is difficult to view that the above "written request for recovery of the right to appeal" was filed after the subsequent completion of appeal, since there is no judgment on the plaintiff's complaint filed on July 9, 2014.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserted that there was a justifiable reason for the Plaintiff’s failure to appear on the date of pleading through the above “written application for recovery of right of appeal”, and thus, the Plaintiff’s judgment is to be made on the purport that the instant lawsuit was deemed to have been withdrawn pursuant to Article 68

B. Therefore, the fact that the Plaintiff did not appear on the date of pleading even though he was directly served with the first notice of the date of pleading on the date of pleading is as seen earlier (if the Plaintiff was unable to appear due to hospitalization, etc., it should have been clarified in advance and thereby caused disadvantages due to the absence on the date of pleading by going through a procedure, such as extending the date of pleading

In addition, the parties should immediately report the purport to the court when they alter the place of service (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 185(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), and this court shall consider that the notice of the second date for pleading against the plaintiff was returned to the court because the director was not known, and thus, the notice of the second date for pleading was sent to the court in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 185(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the second date for pleading was deemed to have been delivered at the time of delivery as above (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 189 of the Civil Procedure Act). The second date for pleading against the plaintiff was delivered to the court. The second date for pleading against the plaintiff was lawfully delivered as above, but the plaintiff was absent from the second date for pleading, and the lawsuit of this case was terminated on January 6, 2015 when one month has elapsed from the second date for pleading and it was terminated. The plaintiff's assertion on the other premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

In accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 268 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Articles 68 and 67(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the termination of the lawsuit in this case shall be declared by judgment.

Appointment of presiding judge or judge;

Judgment Notarial decoration

Support for Judges

1) The Plaintiff appears to be the Defendant’s “Seoul Southern District Office” by the director of the Seoul Southern District Office, which appears to be the clerical error of the Seoul Southern District Office.