1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding a judgment on the Defendant’s argument and the subsequent argument after the closing of argument, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's unpaid leave of absence is that onboard ship reserve personnel are ordinarily determined by ocean transportation enterprises, etc. to serve in onboard ship reserve service, and that, barring special circumstances, the defendant claims that the plaintiff failed to meet the eligibility requirements for job-seeking benefits under the Employment Insurance Act, on the ground that, inasmuch as onboard ship reserve personnel are determined by ocean transportation enterprises, etc. to serve in onboard ship reserve service, they repeat boarding and leaving a ship according to the boarding plan of shipping enterprises, and send a leave from the landing to the next boarding

Considering the following circumstances, namely, ① onboard ship reserve personnel, upon entering into a labor contract with a shipping company at each time of onboard ship service and completing a labor contract, ② receive retirement allowances equivalent thereto at each time of termination of each contract of onboard ship service, ③ not paying the employment insurance premium if they are not onboard ship service, ④ the vessel operation schedule is set by the shipping company and the possibility of change is high, and the period can be prolonged regardless of the will of onboard ship reserve personnel at the time of leaving the ship, and the period of onboard ship reserve personnel after leaving the ship should be considered as unemployment rather than unpaid leave, and the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

(b).