[Uijeongbu Attorney Success Case] Favorable Judgment Following Assistance in Administrative Litigation Regarding Employment Insurance

The client in this case, who came to the Uijeongbu attorney, worked at a company operated by her husband and acquired status as an insured person under employment insurance.

However, the agency responsible for determining eligibility for employment insurance revoked the client's status as an insured person.

The reason given was that, as the spouse of a cohabiting relative of the business owner, she could not be recognized as a worker.

The client then came to Daeryun seeking the assistance of the Uijeongbu attorney in order to file a claim for revocation of the disposition revoking her status as an insured person under employment insurance.

■ Statutes related to the case explained by the Uijeongbu attorney

▶ Employment Insurance Act

Article 2 (Definitions)

The terms used in this Act are defined as follows:

1. The term "insured person" means a person who falls under any of the following items:

(a) Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "Insurance Premium Collection Act") Article 5 (1) and (2), Article 6 (1), Article 8 (1) and (2), Article 48-2 (1) and Article 48-3 (1): a worker, artist, or labor provider who is insured or deemed insured

(b) Insurance Premium Collection Act Article 49-2 (1) and (2): a self-employed person who is insured or deemed insured under employment insurance (hereinafter referred to as a "self-employed insured person")

▶ Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance

Article 5 (Insurance Policyholders)

(1) The business owner and the workers of a business subject to the Employment Insurance Act (excluding workers exempt from application under the Employment Insurance Act Article 10 and Article 10-2; the same applies in this Article hereinafter) automatically become insurance policyholders of the employment insurance under the Employment Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as "employment insurance").

(2) Where, pursuant to the proviso to the Employment Insurance Act Article 8, the business owner of a business to which the same Act does not apply obtains the consent of a majority of the workers and the approval of the Service, the business owner and the workers of that business may enroll in employment insurance.

Article 6 (Constructive Enrollment in Insurance)

(1) Where a business in which the business owner and workers become automatic policyholders of employment insurance under Article 5 (1) comes to fall under a business exempt from application under the proviso to the Employment Insurance Act Article 8 due to a change in the scale of the business or other grounds, the business owner and workers are deemed, from that day, to have enrolled in employment insurance under Article 5 (2).

Article 8 (Collective Application to Businesses)

(1) Where each of the businesses conducted by a business owner who is an automatic policyholder of insurance under Article 5 (1) or the same Article paragraph (3) meets the following requirements, all of those businesses are regarded as one business for the purposes of applying this Act.

1. The business owner is the same person

2. Each business has a fixed term

The Uijeongbu attorney argued that the disposition revoking the client's status as an insured person under employment insurance was unlawful and improper.

The agency that issued the revocation disposition did not regard the client as a worker in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages.

The agency regarded the client, as a spouse, as a joint business owner who managed the husband's workplace together with him.

It cited as a reason the difficulty of ascertaining the actual conditions of work where a cohabiting relative and ordinary workers are present together at a single workplace.

The Uijeongbu attorney at Daeryun submitted ample evidence to rebut the agency's position and argued that the disposition revoking the insured status was unlawful and improper.

The Uijeongbu attorney argued that the client was a worker eligible for insured status under employment insurance.

At the husband's company, the client prepared an employment contract just like the other employees, and worked while receiving the corresponding wages.

The attorney submitted that the client had not only paid earned income tax on her wage income but had also, over a long period, acquired insured status under employment insurance and other social insurance schemes that a worker must bear.

The client in this case, who came to the Uijeongbu attorney, received a disposition from the responsible agency revoking the client's status as an insured person under employment insurance.

Because the client had worked at her husband's company and had maintained her insured status for a long period, she could not accept the sudden revocation disposition.

The client then came to Daeryun and, with the assistance of the Uijeongbu attorney, filed a claim for revocation of the disposition revoking her status as an insured person under employment insurance.

As a result of the litigation, the court accepted the Uijeongbu attorney's arguments and pronounced a decision revoking the revocation disposition.

If you are facing concerns in a situation similar to the case above, you may visit Daeryun Law Firm at any time to receive consultation.