(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.11.선고 2018구합1405 판결

On May 15, 2018, the Defendant revoked the disposition of non-recognition of unemployment benefits benefits benefits benefits benefits benefits benefits benefits granted to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 17, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) from the Home Pusser Service store located in the Tusser Service, from around 17, 2017, the Plaintiff was in charge of the security guidance duties under the Eexer’s control; and (b) on June 13, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for recognition of eligibility for unemployment benefits (hereinafter “instant application”); (c) on April 26, 2018, the Defendant rendered a non-approval of eligibility for unemployment benefits benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”). However, on May 15, 2018, the Defendant rendered a non-approval of eligibility for unemployment benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On May 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with an employment insurance examiner seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but was dismissed on July 3, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, and purport of the whole pleadings

The Plaintiff’s severance from his job due to lub disc, but the Plaintiff’s eligibility for unemployment benefits has been recognized as being able to be employed after completing the current treatment, but the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiff’s eligibility on a different premise. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. Article 40(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "if an insured worker is deemed to fall under any of the following subparagraphs, the insured worker shall not be eligible for benefits under Article 58," and Article 58 of the same Act provides that "if an insured worker is deemed to fall under any of the following subparagraphs, due to his/her own reason, he/she shall not be eligible for benefits" and "if an insured worker falls under any of the following subparagraphs, due to his/her own reason, he/she shall be deemed to fall under any of the following subparagraphs," and Article 101(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "if an insured worker falls under any of the following, due to his/her own reason, he/she shall not fall under any other justifiable reason prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor."

B. Therefore, in order to recognize eligibility for job-seeking benefits, the insured must actively satisfy the requirements such as “unemploymentable condition even though he/she has the intent and ability to work,” and the passive reason should not be the case of leaving his/her job due to “justifiable reason not falling under justifiable reason for severance,” such as “disease” under Article 101(2) and [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Employment Insurance Act.

C. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 15, 26 through 35, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 8, and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff was in a situation where he was unable to find a job despite having the intent and ability to work under Article 40(1)2 of the Employment Insurance Act at the time of the instant disposition. Accordingly, the defendant's disposition on this ground is lawful.

① On June 13, 2017, the Plaintiff served in Eexex, Co., Ltd., and retired from the company on the ground of “the disease” (Hubco).

On June 8, 2017, immediately before the departure from employment, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as "No. 4, 5 percent, and No. 5 percent 1,00." From November 22, 2017 to December 30, 2017, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in C Hospital as "the escape certificate of "No. 4-5 estimated signboards", "from January 2, 2018 to January 16, 2018," respectively.

③ On April 16, 2018, immediately before the filing of the instant application, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with D’s tension with D’s tension, nephal ppuri disease certificate, and with a view to a side of a signboard disability. In addition, the written opinion of May 14, 2018 against the Plaintiff issued by C Hospital E states that “the name of the disease: No. 4, No. 5 summary, the escape certificate of the conical 1,00 square meters, and future treatment opinion: the Plaintiff is a patient under the medical and physical treatment under the above C’s name as the patient under the medical and physical treatment, and as a person who is likely to cause serious harm to the Plaintiff, due to the remainder of the medical treatment after the surgery.”

④ The Plaintiff’s written application of this case states to the effect that, in the future, whether a new workplace is available to work, the Plaintiff’s question is “not at any time” (or at any time a medical treatment is not completely cured due to the current disease), and that, in the Plaintiff’s written statement attached at the time of the application of this case, job-seeking is impossible

⑤ In light of the foregoing circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was completely cured at the time of the instant lawsuit to have completely recovered from the job-seeking benefits at the time of the instant disposition, and thus, it does not meet the requirements for supply and demand as it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was able to have had the intent and ability to work at the time of the instant disposition. Meanwhile, according to Article 48 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 70 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, job-seeking benefits should be paid within the limit of 12 months starting from the date following the date of severance from employment to the date of the fixed payment period. However, in exceptional cases where the Plaintiff is unable to work due to illness or injury, the period should be added to the period during which the job-seeking benefits had the ability to work. Accordingly, the Defendant notified on May 21, 2018 of the extension of the period of job-seeking benefits to the Plaintiff on April 16, 20

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.