(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.7.23.선고 2014구합57622 판결

A. On July 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits, the Defendant recognized the eligibility for benefits from July 8, 2013 to January 10, 2014 for the fixed benefit payment days, and from July 8, 2013 to January 10, 2014.

B. On July 15, 2013 through October 20, 2013, the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits KRW 3,429,190 from the Defendant for five occasions. On October 21, 2013, when receiving job-seeking benefits, the Plaintiff was employed in the off-line system (hereinafter “the off-line system”) and retired from office until March 15, 2014. On March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the payment of early re-employment benefits to the Defendant on May 21, 2014 while working in the off-line SP SP Co. (hereinafter “K”).

D. However, on June 26, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision on the Plaintiff’s application for the payment of early re-employment allowances (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the period of working at the re-employment workplace is less than six months (from October 21, 2013 to March 15, 2014) and the Plaintiff failed to meet the payment requirements. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute over the application for the payment of early re-employment allowances (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The purport of the entire pleadings and arguments as follows.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff was employed in the case system, which is a security service company, and engaged in the guard duty in the Kene B. However, as the security service company of the said workplace changed to the KNS, the Plaintiff was forced to leave the case system and be employed in the KNS because it did not succeed to employment for the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for early re-employment allowance without considering the aforementioned circumstances is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 64(1) of the Employment Insurance Act provides that an eligible recipient shall be paid early re-employment allowance if he/she is re-employed at a stable occupation and meets the criteria prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 84(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25022, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that an eligible recipient “standards prescribed by Presidential Decree” under Article 64(1)1 of the Act means that an eligible recipient is employed continuously for at least six months after the expiration of the waiting period prescribed in Article 49 of the Act as of the day immediately preceding the date of re-employment and re-employment after the expiration of the waiting period.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, the Plaintiff was employed for about five months in the OK system and was not employed for at least six consecutive months for the business owner who re-employed; considering the fact that the Plaintiff was employed at the same workplace, the Defendant also provided the Plaintiff with documents confirming employment succession through the report on the revision of employment insurance at the date of acquisition, and provided the Plaintiff with documents confirming employment succession; but the Plaintiff did not submit such documents; the early re-employment allowance has the nature of incentives to minimize the period of actual employment of the worker and induce the worker to be re-employed early in a stable job through efforts such as active job-seeking, etc., in light of the fact that the “where the Plaintiff was employed for at least six months” under Article 84(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act appears to have set the minimum standard to be evaluated as “cases of re-employment in a stable job under Article 64(1) of the Employment Insurance Act,” and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s retirement from the OK system constitutes the stable employment requirement for early re-employment allowance.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the prior Plaintiff’s claim is without merit on different premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.