2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

[Adoption Evidence: Gap 1-1, 2, Gap 2, Gap 3 through 5-5-1, 2, Eul 1, 2, Eul 3-1, 2, Eul 3-2, Eul 4-1 through 3, Eul 5 through 7, and 9-9-

A. On April 1, 1999, the plaintiff and the non-party deceased's husband who are the plaintiff's husband obtained the qualification of the self-employed insured under Article 6 of the former National Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6124 of Jan. 12, 200), Article 10, Article 11 (2) (amended by Act No. 6286 of Dec. 23, 2000), Article 1 of the Addenda to the National Pension Act (amended by Act No. 5623 of Dec. 31, 198).

B. On November 1, 200 of the same year, the Plaintiff was employed for the non-party corporation, the workplace to which the National Pension is applied, and accordingly, acquired the qualification of the workplace subscriber of the National Pension under the provisions of Article 8 (amended by Act No. 6124 of Jan. 12, 2000) and Article 11 (1) 1 (amended by Act No. 6286 of Dec. 23, 200) of the former National Pension Act.

C. From November 1999, the above highest period was running the freight trucking service on the route with the trade name of safe logistics, and no separate income was available after closure of the business on June 19, 2001. However, even though the plaintiff, the spouse, as a workplace subscriber, falls under Article 10 subparagraph 1 (b) and Article 12 (2) subparagraph 5 of the National Pension Act, which provides for the requirements and timing for the loss of eligibility of an individually insured person, and thus, he lost his eligibility as an individually insured person, despite his loss of eligibility, the defendant filed an application for exception payment from July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2002 because the plaintiff did not have any separate income as a workplace subscriber. The defendant did not notify the defendant of the change of eligibility of the National Pension Premium payment from the date of the above month to the date of 10th of the National Pension Pension Premium payment under Article 77-2 (1) 7 of the National Pension Act, Article 49-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 444(1) of the same Act.

D. On the other hand, on June 29, 199, the above highest term was diagnosed as waste cancer and received treatment at a hospital affiliated with the college and university on March 24, 2002. Accordingly, on the 30th of the same month, the defendant confirmed on the 25th of the same month following the death that the highest term was "when a locally provided policyholder under Article 12 (2) 1 of the National Pension Act died", and thus, the defendant lost his eligibility as a locally provided policyholder on the 25th of the same month following the death. After that, the plaintiff filed a claim for payment of survivor pension to the defendant under Article 62 (1) 3 of the National Pension Act, Article 24 (4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the National Pension Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 238 of Jan. 29, 2003).

E. However, in the process of confirming the eligibility of the Plaintiff’s eligibility for the survivors’ pension, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff, at the time of July 1, 2001, was the workplace subscriber on the ground that the above highest period had no separate income, and that the highest period of eligibility for the survivors’ pension fell under Article 10 subparag. 1(b) and Article 12(2) subparag. 5 of the National Pension Act, and thus, lost the eligibility of an individually insured person. On April 18, 2002, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on the ground that the above highest period of eligibility for the survivors’ pension was less than 10 years since March 25, 201 to July 1, 201, and that the above highest period of eligibility for the survivors’ pension was less than 10 years, and that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the eligibility for the survivors’ pension after the lapse of 20 years from June 29, 199.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The above highest period of time applied for exemption from the payment of pension premiums to the defendant on the premise that it continues to maintain the eligibility of an individually insured person due to lack of separate income after closure of the above-line cargo transport business. However, Article 14(1) of the National Pension Act provides the defendant's duty to confirm whether the above highest period of time constitutes the eligibility of an individually insured person, and the defendant must confirm it and notify the above highest period of time. In addition, in a case where the defendant confirmed whether the above highest period of time of time is disqualified of an individually insured person, the above highest period of time was treated as abolished cancer and acquired the eligibility of a voluntarily insured person pursuant to Article 10-2(1) of the National Pension Act, as a matter of course, without properly ascertaining whether the above highest period of time of time is disqualified, the above highest period of time was determined as the person who was the best insured person, and the defendant did not regard the above highest period of time as maintaining the eligibility of an individually insured person and did not subsequently file an application for exemption from the payment of pension premiums to the plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 10 subparagraph 1 (b) of the National Pension Act provides that the spouse of the workplace subscriber who has no separate income shall be excluded from the workplace subscriber, and Article 12 (2) 5 of the same Act provides that the spouse under Article 10 subparagraph 1 of the same Act shall lose the eligibility of the workplace subscriber on the day following the day on which no separate income exists. Article 14 (1) of the same Act provides that the defendant shall confirm the loss of the eligibility of the workplace subscriber. Article 14 (2) of the same Act provides that the loss of the eligibility of the workplace subscriber shall take effect at the time of loss of the eligibility under Article 12 by the confirmation of the defendant under paragraph (1) of the same Article.

However, in a case where there is a question as to whether the insured is excluded from the eligibility of the National Pension Service under Article 14 (1) of the same Act, it is a quasi-legal administrative act that determines whether the insured is a person eligible for eligibility of the National Pension Service under each subparagraph of Article 10 of the same Act, and it is an administrative disposition that determines the existence of the existing facts or legal relations and does not create a new legal relationship. Thus, the defendant cannot deny the validity of the insured's qualification acquisition and loss on the ground of a report of mistake or failure to report, etc. of the insured. Therefore, even if a self-employed who applied for exception to pension premium payment on the premise that the insured continues to be disqualified after the eligibility is lost, if the insured objectively falls under the requirement of eligibility of an individually insured person, the defendant must confirm the eligibility excluded from the individually insured person,

On the other hand, when there is a defect in the act, the disposition agency which has taken the administrative disposition can cancel it by itself without any separate legal basis (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6311 delivered on September 15, 1995, etc.). In such a case, even if the defendant confirmed that he maintains the eligibility of the self-employed insured in accordance with the contents reported by the self-employed insured, if it is found that the self-employed insured satisfies the objective requirements of loss, then the confirmation can be cancelled as recognized as the self-employed insured and the confirmation can be made again to be excluded from the self-employed insured. Accordingly, the self-employed insured shall lose its eligibility

In the instant case, under the premise that the above highest period of eligibility of an individually insured person is maintained by the eligibility of an individually insured person, even though the plaintiff's spouse who is the workplace insured person has no separate income, as seen earlier, the defendant confirmed that the above highest period of eligibility as an individually insured person is the same as the above highest period of July 10, 201. On March 30, 2002 after the death of the above highest period of time, the defendant confirmed that the above highest period of eligibility as an individually insured person was disqualified on the 25th day of the same month following the death of the above highest period of time, but it was confirmed that the above highest period of eligibility as an individually insured person was excluded from the individually insured person on April 18 of the same year since the above highest period of eligibility as the individually insured person was disqualified on July 10, 201, and the above highest period of eligibility as the individually insured person on March 30, 2002 were revoked on the 10th day after the death of the above highest period of time.

Therefore, the above highest term is not a self-employed insured person who had been an insured person with less than 10 years' subscription period, but a person who died on March 24, 2002 after the lapse of two years from June 29, 199, which was the first diagnosis date during the subscription period for the National Pension. Thus, the plaintiff who is the bereaved family member cannot receive the survivors' pension under Article 62 (2) of the National Pension Act.

In addition, Article 14(1) of the National Pension Act does not intend to correct erroneous reports made by an insured person on the acquisition or loss of his/her eligibility, but to clarify the legal relationship surrounding the National Pension Scheme between an insured person and the defendant conducting national pension business by determining whether the insured person has acquired or lost his/her eligibility. As such, whether the insured person's eligibility constitutes the requirement for acquisition or loss of eligibility shall be determined by objective facts. The defendant's confirmation does not pass the effective requirements. As such, the first liability for the defendant to confirm the acquisition or loss of eligibility of an insured person and to report to the defendant after confirming the existence of the existence of the existence of the existence of the requirement for eligibility of an insured person and the occurrence of the equivalent fact. Thus, the above highest period can not be said to have any ground for exception on the ground that the defendant applied for exemption of pension contributions without confirming the existence of the eligibility of an insured person and the occurrence of the equivalent fact, and even if the defendant applied for exemption of pension contributions upon the above highest period's application, it cannot be said that all of the above measures were not applicable to the insured person.

Ultimately, the instant disposition that did not recognize the Plaintiff as the beneficiary of bereaved family benefits is lawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, it shall be dismissed.

Judge Clerks (Presiding Judge)