(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.1.10. 선고 2018누61446 판결

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s revocation of the restriction on the payment of unemployment benefits, the order to return, and the disposition of additional collection against the Plaintiff on December 19, 2016.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows, and the defendant's argument at the trial is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment except for an additional determination under Paragraph (2) below. Thus, this court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (other grounds asserted by the plaintiff while filing an appeal by this court are not significantly different from the contents asserted by the plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are re-examineed with the plaintiff's assertion, the

○ In the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment of December 17, 2016 referred to in the second instance judgment of December 19, 2016 referred to in the second instance judgment of December 201 shall be deemed to be “the December 19, 2016.” In the third instance judgment of the first instance, the second instance judgment of May 10, 201 referred to as “the May 11, 2017.” The second instance judgment of ○○○ is deemed to be “the May 11, 2017.” The first instance judgment of May 6, 201, first through 4, first instance to the effect that, in the event the Plaintiff stays abroad from the public official in charge of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was informed that the application for job-seeking benefits by a third party may be filed directly with the Plaintiff, and that the application for the payment of job-seeking benefits by proxy shall be made directly by the recipient, and that the application for the payment of the job-seeking benefits by proxy shall be made by proxy.”

○, No. 6 of the judgment of the first instance court, "No. 4" was written with "No. 4 and No. 9" written with "No. 9."

The following is added between the 7th and 6th of the first instance judgment.

② Article 48(2) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 70 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provide that where a state in which one is unable to find a job due to his/her disease during the benefit period of 12 months continues, the benefit period may be extended by up to four years. The Plaintiff, other than the disease, was able to apply for an extension of the benefit period pursuant to the above provision during his/her stay in Korea, but did not apply for an extension, and received job-seeking benefits by filing an application for an extension through a third party, without applying for an extension. The Plaintiff was paid job-seeking benefits by applying for an extension of the benefit period pursuant to the above provision. On the first instance judgment of the first instance court, “B” in Chapter 7,

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 44 (3) 4 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the Employment Insurance Act can obtain recognition of unemployment even in the case of failure to appear at employment security offices due to natural disasters or other unavoidable reasons.

The plaintiff constitutes "a case where attendance at the Employment Security Office was inevitable due to overseas medical care to cure diseases included in the above provisions," and thus, the above circumstances should be considered in the application for recognition of unemployment via the Internet.

B. Determination

1) According to Article 17 subparag. 4 of the Regulations on the Recognition of Unemployment and the Assistance to Re-employment (amended by the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s Rule No. 93, Sept. 25, 2015; hereinafter the same), “other inevitable reasons” refers to cases where a person attends a court, prosecutor’s office, Labor Relations Commission, etc. as a witness, witness, etc. pursuant to Article 44(3) subparag. 4 of the Employment Insurance Act, where a person attends a draft physical examination call, mobilization, etc. pursuant to the Military Service Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes, where a person is summoned, detained, etc. as a criminal suspect, where he/she attends a marriage or other competitive investigation within the scope of the number of days of each ordinary holiday under the State Public Officials Service Regulations

2) Article 44(3)1 of the Employment Insurance Act is already stipulated in Article 44(3)1 of the Employment Insurance Act, and it is also difficult to view it as cases corresponding to the grounds stipulated in Article 17 subparag. 4 of the Employment Insurance Act, and therefore, the Plaintiff does not constitute “other inevitable reasons” under Article 44(3)4 of the Employment Insurance Act. Therefore, even if the Defendant did not consider whether the Plaintiff at the time of the instant disposition falls under Article 44(3)4 of the Employment Insurance Act, it cannot be deemed otherwise erroneous (On the other hand, the Plaintiff does not constitute a case where the period during which the Plaintiff was unable to appear at employment security offices is less than 7 days continuously, and the Plaintiff did not submit a certificate stating the reasons for not being present, and thus, it cannot

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the name of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.