유족연금부지급처분취소
1. On December 26, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of site payment for survivor pension against the Plaintiff is revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. B (CB) completed the marriage report with D on August 26, 1963, and D completed the marriage report on March 29, 201, which was after D died on March 29, 2011.
B. The Deceased retired on March 19, 197 while serving as a public official, and received a retirement pension from the Defendant from April 1997.
C. After the Deceased died on October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff, the wife of the Deceased, applied for the succession to the survivor pension to the Defendant on December 10, 2013.
However, the Defendant: “The marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Deceased was established on April 11, 201, which was after the Deceased’s retirement; and the Plaintiff is not a spouse who was in the marital relationship with the Deceased at the time when the Deceased was employed as a public official; thus, on the ground that it is not a bereaved family under the Public Officials Pension Act, the Defendant issued a disposition of paying the survivor pension to the Plaintiff on December
(See Evidence No. 3, hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff continued to maintain a de facto marital relationship while living together with the deceased from around 1969, and completed the report of marriage with the deceased on April 11, 201, as D, the legal spouse of the deceased, died on March 29, 2011.
As such, since the deceased was in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased since he was employed as a public official, the Plaintiff constitutes a bereaved family member under Article 3(1)2 of the Public Officials Pension Act and constitutes a beneficiary of a survivor pension under Article 56 of the Public Officials Pension
Although the Plaintiff was a de facto de facto marital relationship with the Deceased while serving as a public official of the Deceased, the marital relationship between the Deceased and D was not only a divorce report but also a de facto failure in around 1969, and the relationship between D and D with the Plaintiff by having already died and received a survivor pension does not coincide with each other.
Therefore, the instant disposition made on a different premise is taken.