1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows. The defendant's argument in the trial of the court of first instance is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for additional determination under Paragraph 2 below. Thus, it is accepted 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.

(A) In addition, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff while filing an appeal are not significantly different from that alleged 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 along with the Plaintiff’s assertion, the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s claim is justifiable. The second instance court, on December 17, 2016, dismissed “No. 18” as “No. 19, Dec. 2016.”

Part III of the first instance judgment, " May 10, 2017" in Part II shall be applied to " May 11, 2017".

The 6th written judgment of the court of first instance shall consist of the 6th through 4th parts as follows.

Although the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that “On the other hand, the Plaintiff was informed by the public official in charge of the Defendant that it is possible to file an application for representation through a third party in the event of staying in the Republic of Korea,” there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, according to the record of the evidence No. 9, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff shall file an application for job-seeking benefits directly with the recipient, and the application for representation is judged to be an unlawful act such as acting in the Republic of Korea.”

The following shall be 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 is unable to find a person due to his/her disease during the benefit period of 12 months, the benefit period may be extended by up to four years.

The plaintiff is suffering from disease.