2015Nu20848 Revocation of Disposition rejecting an application for difference in childcare leave

A

The Administrator of Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency

Busan District Court Decision 2014Guhap3397 Decided February 12, 2015

July 8, 2015

September 9, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On September 26, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of partial payment of childcare leave benefits against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the use of some of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance ("2.b.") as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use]

B. Determination

1) Article 70(2) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that “A person who intends to receive childcare leave shall file an application from one month after the first day of the child care leave to 12 months after the first day of the child care leave,” and Article 107(1) provides that “The right to receive childcare leave benefits or to receive the return thereof shall expire if it is not exercised for three years.”

Meanwhile, Article 87 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that a person who has an objection to a disposition on childcare leave benefits under Chapter 5 may file a request for review with an examiner, and that person who has an objection to the decision may file a request for review with the Board of Review (Paragraph 1), and that a request for review shall be filed within 90 days from the date he/she becomes aware of the decision on the request for review, and that a request for review shall be filed within 90 days from the date he/she becomes aware of the decision on the request for review (Paragraph 2). In addition, Article 104 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "an adjudication on a request for reexamination shall be deemed an adjudication on an administrative appeal (Paragraph 1) where Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act is applied, and matters that are not provided for in this Act concerning a request for review

In general, in a case where an administrative disposition or a ruling on administrative appeal becomes final and conclusive due to the lapse of the appeal period, its final and conclusive power means that a person whose legal interest is infringed upon by such disposition can no longer dispute the effect of such disposition or ruling, and further, it does not mean that res judicata such as that in a ruling is recognized, the factual or legal judgment which forms the basis of the disposition is final and conclusive, and that the parties concerned or the court cannot make arguments or judgments inconsistent therewith (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu17181, Apr. 13, 1993).

2) In light of the above provisions and legal principles, the insured under the Employment Insurance Act, who received childcare leave benefits, may seek payment to the next defendant in addition to the benefits recognized in the relevant disposition even if the part was not determined because it did not make a request for examination or reexamination of the benefits for childcare, and the refusal of payment constitutes a "disposition on the benefits for childcare" under Article 87 (1) of the Employment Insurance Act (the defendant sent an official notice to the court below that the defendant would return the difference payment application of childcare leave on September 26, 2014. However, even if the plaintiff was notified that the period of the request for examination was excessive, it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition. However, the defendant's explanation that the difference in childcare leave benefits for which the period of the request for examination has yet to elapse constitutes a rejection disposition of the administrative agency that is subject to appeal litigation, as it is nothing more than the rejection of the plaintiff's request for payment of the above difference).

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which rejected the Plaintiff’s above motion, is subject to appeal, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 17, 2014 within ninety days from the date of the instant disposition, and therefore, the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits is groundless.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The presiding judge, judges and grandchildren;

Judges and worships

Judges Anti-Jin-dong