2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From August 24, 2014, the Plaintiff (B) is the wife of C (D) and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the basic pension payment of KRW 160,000 per month can be guaranteed as a person eligible for basic pensions under the Basic Pension Act.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s husband, as a retired public official, was paid the retirement pension prescribed by the Public Officials Pension Act as the lump sum retirement pension. However, the Defendant recognized that C was paid a retirement lump sum, not the lump sum retirement pension, due to an error that occurred while computerized data was transmitted from the Public Official Pension Service to

Accordingly, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was not the spouse of the person who received the lump-sum retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act, which is excluded from the payment pursuant to Article 3(3)1 of the Basic Pension Act and Article 5 subparag. 1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and caused the Plaintiff to give such erroneous notice

Furthermore, from August 2014 to September 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 2,412,480 to the Plaintiff under the Basic Pension Act.

C. On March 9, 2016, the Defendant sent a prior notice of disposition to the Plaintiff to recover the basic pension erroneously paid pursuant to Article 19 of the Basic Pension Act on March 9, 2016, and sent to the Plaintiff a public notice on April 25, 2016, stating that “the decision to recover the basic pension and the notice of payment based on the result of the decision on the determination on occupational pension in 2015” to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff filed an objection on May 10, 2016, but was dismissed on June 15, 2016, and filed an administrative appeal on September 6, 2016, but was dismissed on October 24, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4.