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 for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court’s judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the additional determination does not include the recommended position by the business owner on the ground that the employment adjustment under Article 26(3)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act “if the worker has retired from employment by employment adjustment.”

The purpose of the employment subsidy system for the elderly, etc. is to facilitate and maintain employment of the elderly, etc. who are difficult to find employment despite the intention of employment, and the employment subsidy for the elderly, etc. is to prevent the employment of the elderly, etc. who are vulnerable to employment by meeting certain conditions, such as where they maintain more than a certain standard under the above Enforcement Decree. In the event they fail to meet such conditions, it is to exclude them from receiving the payment, and to prevent the employment of the elderly, etc. who are vulnerable to employment by allowing them to be excluded from receiving the payment. In light of the balance between the circumstances where Article 58 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that the insured, who was dismissed due to serious reasons or has left employment due to their own reason, shall not be eligible for job-seeking benefits, the term “off from employment by adjustment” means the case where the employment contract is terminated by the employer, such as the need for management, without being attributable to or without the employee’s voluntary intention, which means a wide concept rather than the “off” which means

In this case, considering the overall purport of the evidence argument submitted by the Health Team and the first instance court, the Plaintiff is about C and D on December 14, 2015 and February 5, 2016.