2015Nu33853 Revocation of revocation of disposition

A

The Administrator of the Incheon Northern District Office of Central Employment and Labor;

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Guhap2038 Decided January 15, 2015

May 29, 2015

August 21, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's rejection disposition of additional payment of childcare-related temporary retirement benefits against the plaintiff on May 7, 2014 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed mainly, and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed in preliminary case.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “The aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 9, 4, and 5 of the first instance court’s judgment to the effect that “the first instance court submitted them” was “the whole purport of each entry and pleading No. 10, 11 of the evidence and evidence No. 10, and the whole purport of pleading”; and the reasoning for the first instance’s judgment is the same, except for addition of the judgment on the argument emphasized by the Defendant at the trial. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion

A person who intends to apply for childcare leave shall file an application for childcare leave within 12 months from the first month after the commencement date of childcare leave (Article 70(2) of the Employment Insurance Act). The Plaintiff’s period of childcare leave from May 25, 2011 to January 25, 2012 (Second children), and ② from January 26, 2012 to July 19, 2012 (first children), the period during which the Plaintiff may apply for childcare leave is between January 25, 2013 and July 19, 2013, respectively. However, the Plaintiff’s disposition rejecting the instant application for childcare leave based on the difference between the Plaintiff’s existing childcare leave and the amount calculated based on ordinary wages.

B. Determination

First of all, the grounds cited by the Defendant that the Defendant did not file an application for childcare leave within 12 months after the termination of childcare leave are not included in the grounds for the instant disposition, and the same cannot be said to have the same effect as the instant disposition agent, the oil and the basic facts. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be allowed to add the above grounds to the grounds for disposition.

Even if the above reasons are allowed to be added to the grounds for disposition, Article 107(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the extinctive prescription expires if the right to receive childcare benefits is not exercised for three years, and Article 107(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the extinctive prescription shall be interrupted due to the application filed by the beneficiary for childcare benefits. Considering the legislative intent and structure of the Employment Insurance Act, Article 70(12) of the Employment Insurance Act stipulating that the application for childcare benefits shall be filed within 12 months from the beginning date of childcare leave after the expiration date, it cannot be viewed as a mandatory provision, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the application for childcare benefits may be filed before three years elapse from the last date of

As seen earlier, on April 18, 2014, before the three-year extinctive prescription expires from January 25, 2012 and July 19, 2012, the Plaintiff sought payment of the difference between the child-care leave and the child-care leave paid by the Defendant to the previous Plaintiff on April 18, 2014, including bonuses, long-term continuous service allowances, meal allowances, transport subsidies, and customized welfare points, and the amount of difference between the child-care leave and the child-care leave paid by the Defendant to the previous Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s application is lawful and lawful.

[In the case of this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff applied for childcare leave under Article 95 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act within 12 months after the date of the previous childcare leave. Since the Defendant is obligated to pay childcare leave under the above Acts and subordinate statutes, it is not deemed that the application for difference payment was included in the previous application of the Plaintiff (from June 201 to August 201).

Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Judges Nown Korea

Judge Lee Ro-man