(영문) 서울고등법원 춘천재판부 2018.8.20. 선고 2018누437 판결

2. On October 17, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of early re-employment allowance paid to the Plaintiff for early re-employment against the Plaintiff is revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Partial citement of judgment of the first instance;

In the reasoning of the judgment of the court of this case, "1. The details of the disposition of this case" from "2. The legality of the disposition of this case"

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, b. Relevant statutes are the same as the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2, 2, 3, 12, and 5). As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The portion different from the judgment of the court of first instance

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 64(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the early re-employment allowance shall be paid if an eligible recipient is re-employed in a stable occupation or self-employed business for profit, and if the eligible recipient falls under any of the criteria prescribed by Presidential Decree." Accordingly, Article 84(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25022, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter referred to as "Enforcement Decree") provides that "the early re-employment allowance shall be paid if an eligible recipient is re-employed for at least 30 days after the expiration of the waiting period prescribed in Article 49 of the Act and the fixed benefit payment days under Article 50 of the Act remain after the date immediately preceding the date of re-employment is re-employed for at least six consecutive months (Article 1) or where an eligible recipient is employed continuously for at least six months (Article 2

The purpose of this early re-employment allowance is to minimize the period of unemployment and promote stable reemployment by paying a certain amount of money equivalent to the unpaid part of the fixed-term job-seeking benefits, regardless of the type of self-employment or the type of employment, where a beneficiary can be able to obtain income from re-employment in a stable manner before receiving all job-seeking benefits.

Article 84(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "where a business owner re-employed continues to engage in a business for at least six months" (Article 84(1) and "where a business owner continues to engage in a business for at least six months" (Article 64(1) of the Act) and "where a business owner engages in a for-profit business through a stable job," respectively. Although the Employment Insurance Act does not provide for the definition of "employment", "where a business is employed" under Article 84(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act does not necessarily include "where a business owner is re-employed through an employment contract or employment contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19892, Dec. 8, 201)" and "where a business owner continues to engage in a business for at least six months" and "where a business owner engages in a for-profit business through a stable job, he/she shall be construed as including "where a business owner continues to engage in a business for which remuneration or other similar income was suspended for a temporary period of 1."

2) Determination

According to the above circumstances, since the Plaintiff entered into a contract with B Elementary School, C School, and D Elementary School on March 2013 with each part-time lecturer at the above schools and received the payment for the work for others, it should be deemed that the fixed benefit payment days for job-seeking benefits falls under "the case where the Plaintiff re-employed for more than 30 days after re-employment." Although the above schools entered into a contract with the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff with the exception of the period of study or the period of study, it is temporary due to the nature of the after-school lecturer at the school, and since the Plaintiff continued to receive the payment for the after-school lecturer at the above schools after the school period, it can be deemed that the employment relationship of the Plaintiff was continued before and after the school period, the above vacation period also includes "the continuous employment period as stipulated in Article 84 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree."

Therefore, the Plaintiff should be deemed to fall under the requirement of Article 84(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree as of the date of the instant disposition, that is, “the case where a re-employed business owner continues to employ for not less than six months.” Thus, the Defendant’s refusal to pay early re-employment allowances to the Plaintiff on the ground that it

Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the judgment of the court of first instance and accepting the plaintiff's claim.