(영문) 광주지방법원 2012.5.31. 선고 2011구합4671 판결

A. On November 8, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance with respect to the eligibility for benefits with respect to the Plaintiff’s employment at (State)B, thereby obtaining recognition of eligibility for benefits from the Defendant.

B. While receiving job-seeking benefits, the Plaintiff was employed on December 19, 2010 in C (hereinafter “C”) and applied for the payment of the early re-employment allowance to the Defendant on April 30, 201, following the withdrawal on April 30, 201.

C. However, on June 15, 201, 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 employment at the re-employment business place was less than six months, and that it failed to meet the payment requirements.

C. On June 22, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with an employment insurance examiner seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but was dismissed on October 20, 201. On November 2, 2011, the Employment Insurance Review Committee filed a petition for review with the Employment Insurance Review Committee, but was dismissed on December 5, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff was forced to continue to work on April 30, 201 following the employer’s compulsory dismissal on December 19, 201 while employed in C from C to December 19, 2010 and failed to meet the conditions of continuous employment for six months without any cause attributable to the Plaintiff. In such a case, the employee is deemed to have met the conditions of continuous employment for six months and shall be paid early re-employment allowances. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful, and the Defendant is obligated to pay early re-employment allowances to the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

On November 8, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits. Accordingly, the Defendant recognized eligibility for benefits from November 3, 2010 to April 13, 2011 for the fixed benefit payment period of 150 days, daily benefit amount of job-seeking benefits amount of 29,592 won, and the benefit period of November 3, 201.

As a result, the Plaintiff received job-seeking benefits 1,006,120 won through the recognition of unemployment, which falls under 34 days from November 15, 2010 to December 18, 2010.

On December 19, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with C and “work place: D apartment, work period: from December 19, 2010 to December 18, 201, and the reason for termination of a labor contract: from December 18, 2011, the labor contract is terminated automatically at the expiration of the service contract and even during the termination of the contract at the workplace, and no civil or criminal objection may be raised against this.”

○ After that, while serving as security guards in D apartment, the security service was converted into the autonomous management of apartment units in the consignment service contract, the Plaintiff retired on April 30, 201, and concluded the contract with the council of occupants’ representatives, after concluding the contract with the above council of occupants’ representatives, and retired from office to another apartment management company by May 30, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2) 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) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the criteria prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 64(1) of the same Act provides that an eligible beneficiary shall be the case where an eligible beneficiary is employed for at least six consecutive months for re-employment as of the day immediately preceding the date of re-employment after the waiting period under Article 49 of the Act.

However, the following circumstances revealed by taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the facts of the recognition as seen earlier, namely, the Plaintiff was employed for not less than 4 months in C, and the Plaintiff was not employed for not less than 6 months continuously (the total period of work in D apartment as a daily contract shall not exceed 6 months). Early re-employment allowances are incentives for inducing the actual worker to be re-employed early in a stable occupation through efforts such as active job-seeking, etc. Therefore, considering the purport of paying early re-employment allowances, it is difficult to view that the “where the Plaintiff is employed for not less than 6 months continuously” under Article 84(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act as “where he is employed at a stable occupation” under Article 64(1) of the Employment Insurance Act. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the termination of the apartment service contract between C and C, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance constitutes the requirements for stabilizing the employment contract before the retirement of 6 months prior to the termination of the employment contract.

3) Sub-decisions

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

3. Conclusion

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