2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s wife Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff’s wife Nonparty 2, and the Plaintiff’s wife Nonparty 3 are registered in the resident registration card for each household and reside in the same residence (hereinafter “the households comprised of the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1, 2, and 3”).

B. On March 25, 2011, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff’s son Nonparty 2 constituted “beneficiary with ability to work” under Article 9(5) of the National Basic Living Security Act (hereinafter “the Act”), and determined Nonparty 2 as a person who receives livelihood benefits on the condition that Nonparty 2 participate in a project necessary for self-support (hereinafter “Conditional recipient”), and notified Nonparty 2 thereof.

C. The head of the Seoul Heavy Regional Self-support Center, a self-support project implementing agency, sent a notice of consultation on self-support projects to Nonparty 2 three times from April 5, 2011 to April 7, 2011, but Nonparty 2 expressed his/her intention not to participate in self-support projects, and notified the Defendant of such fact on April 11, 201.

D. On April 15, 201, the Defendant imposed estimated income on Nonparty 2 on the ground of Nonparty 2’s non-performance of the condition. On April 22, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change of benefits to the effect that “the benefits of the individual household of this case shall be adjusted downwardly as the estimated income is adjusted,” and on May 23, 2011, the Defendant notified Nonparty 2 of the suspension of livelihood benefits to Nonparty 2, “the payment of cost of living benefits 169,230 won from June 201 to June 23, 2011.”

E. Nonparty 2 filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the preceding disposition with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, and on July 25, 201, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling revoking the preceding disposition on the ground that, in light of the fact that “the Defendant did not give prior notice notwithstanding Article 21(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act while making the preceding disposition that constitutes withdrawal of the beneficial administrative act within the scope of lower-level adjustment of benefits, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have given the opportunity to present opinions under Article 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act, the Defendant’s information on the objection that he knows is against the Administrative Procedures Act.”

F. As the prior disposition of this case was revoked, the Defendant deposited KRW 1,920,40,00 for the livelihood and housing benefits of the individual household of this case (=living benefits of KRW 1,371,420 + Housing benefits of KRW 548,980) of the Plaintiff’s wife into the bank account of Nonparty 1.

G. On November 10, 201, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing estimated income (hereinafter “disposition imposing estimated income”) on Nonparty 2 based on Articles 3 and 9(5) of the Act and the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s “201 National Basic Living Security Project Guidance” published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (hereinafter “instant guide”) on the ground that Nonparty 2 failed to implement the conditions for Nonparty 2’s self-support project participation (i.e., minimum wage of KRW 34,560 x the number of applicable days).

H. On November 17, 201, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff on the change of the amount of benefits that reduces the living and housing benefits of the instant individual household from 422,380 won per month to 76,880 won from November 20, 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 13 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the disposition of this case which greatly reduced the living and residential benefits of individual households of this case by imposing estimated income even though there is no estimated income item, shall be deemed null and void as the degree of violation of laws and regulations is apparent.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) With respect to recipients with ability to work pursuant to Article 30(2) of the Act, the cost of living assistances shall be provided on condition that they shall participate in self-support labor, and if they fail to comply with the conditions, the cost of living assistances shall not be provided in whole or in part.

(B) However, there is no provision on which cost of living benefits should be deducted and paid to a certain extent. Therefore, in accordance with the criteria set forth in the instant guide, an estimated income is imposed in consideration of the income, property, and household characteristics of the recipient households.

(C) The Defendant imposed estimated income on the Plaintiff, a conditional beneficiary, due to Nonparty 2’s failure to comply with the condition, and accordingly, issued the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry is as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Method for calculating the benefits under this Act;

According to Article 4(3) of the Act, a livelihood security agency shall provide benefits by individual household under the Act, and according to Article 7(2) of the Act, the level of benefits shall be more than the minimum cost of living, including livelihood benefits, housing benefits, medical benefits, educational benefits, self-support benefits, and recognized income of recipients. The minimum cost of living shall be determined and publicly announced annually by the Minister of Health and Welfare pursuant to Article 6(1) and (2) of the Act. In the case of year 2011, three-person households are KRW 1,173,121, and 1,439,413 in the case of four-person households. Accordingly, the amount obtained by deducting the recognized amount of income of such individual household from the minimum cost of living determined and publicly announced for each household scale is the amount of benefits for such individual household.

According to Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the Act, the recognized amount of income refers to the sum of the evaluated amount of income of individual households and the converted amount of property income.

According to Article 2 subparagraph 10 of the Act, "amount of property conversion" means an amount calculated by multiplying the value of property of an individual household by the income conversion rate.

According to Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Act, Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, "the assessed value of individual household income" means the amount calculated by subtracting the basic salary under Article 6 of the Act on Pensions for Persons with Disabilities and the additional salary, etc. under Article 7 of the same Act from the actual income. Actual income refers to the sum of wage and salary income, business income, property income, and other income. Other income refers to ① money and valuables at least the amount determined by the Minister of Health and Welfare among money and valuables regularly received from relatives or sponsors, ② amount determined by the Minister of Health and Welfare pursuant to Article 4 (1) 4 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, ③ various allowances, pensions, benefits, or other money

(2) Whether the disposition of imposition of estimated income of this case was effective

(A) According to the above provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, in order to calculate the amount of benefits for individual households, income in the "calculated amount of income of individual households" included in the recognized amount of income is merely the income of individual households, such as earned income, business income, property income, and other income. Thus, there is no legal basis for imposing estimated income by presumption that a recipient with ability to work has a certain income on the ground that he/she does not participate in self-support projects.

(B) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) The Defendant asserts the instant guide as the basis for imposing estimated income tax.

According to the purport of the entire argument, Articles 88 and 89 of the guide of this case provide that "a person subject to estimated income is unable to investigate income because his/her employment and work is unclear, but it is difficult to recognize that he/she has no income in view of his/her residential and living conditions," and "a person subject to conditional recipients who failed to meet the conditions" shall be deemed a person subject to estimated income assessment, and the fact that calculating estimated income by multiplying the daily estimated wage by the number

However, there is no statutory basis or delegation provision regarding the imposition of presumed income, and thus, the part concerning the imposition of presumed income in the instant guide is contrary to the principle of statutory reservation under Article 37(2) of the Constitution, and thus has no legal effect. Accordingly, the imposition of presumed income that limits the citizens’ rights cannot be conducted on this basis.

2) In addition, the Defendant asserts Article 30(2) of the Act on Cost of Living Assistances as the basis for imposing estimated income when a conditional recipient fails to fulfill the conditions.

According to Articles 9(5) and 30(2) of the Act, a livelihood security agency may provide livelihood benefits on condition that a recipient with ability to work participate in a project necessary for self-support. In a case where a recipient with ability to work fails to comply with the above conditions, the whole or part of the livelihood benefits for the recipient himself/herself who has ability to work may not be paid until he/she fulfills the conditions. According to Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and Article 7(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, the Special Self-Governing Province Governor or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall, without delay, determine the conditional recipient’s payment suspension and suspension of the livelihood benefits and notify the conditional recipient of the decision, and the suspension benefits shall be determined by the Minister of Health and Welfare every year in consideration of the minimum cost of living, etc.

In the event of failure to comply with the table (B) contained in the main text, suspension of livelihood benefits (Article 7 (4) of the Enforcement Rule) - Suspension of livelihood benefits (Article 7 (4) of the Enforcement Rule) - The amount of livelihood benefits increased by adding one member of the household to the same recognized amount of income shall be deemed to be “the person’s livelihood benefits” - In other words, the person’s living benefits corresponding to the same recognized amount of income shall be paid only on the basis of the remaining household members less the person himself/herself, and the person’s housing benefits, including the person who has failed to perform the condition, shall be provided 1) where the recognized amount of income is 500,00,00 of the four household members who have failed to fulfill the condition, 502,553 won for the person’s living and accommodation benefits of the household - three households for the person who has failed to perform the condition : (960,475 - 500,000) x 80.7% residential benefits (130), -10105) -300

Therefore, Article 30 (2) of the Act on the Cost of Living Assistances when a conditional recipient fails to fulfill the conditions of a conditional recipient is not paid the cost of living for the conditional recipient himself/herself, and it is a provision that is not related to the assessment of estimated income for the conditional recipient, so it cannot be the basis for imposing estimated income.

(C) Sub-decisions

Therefore, to suspend the provision of livelihood benefits to Nonparty 2 on the ground that Nonparty 2, a conditional beneficiary, failed to fulfill the condition (the fact that the Defendant notified Nonparty 2 of the suspension of livelihood benefits to Nonparty 2 on May 23, 2011 is the same as above) is unlawful as it was conducted without any legal basis, and such defect is a serious violation of the important part of the law and is objectively obvious (in the case of the law, the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and the Enforcement Rule of the Act, any provision on the imposition of estimated income does not exist, and it cannot be the basis for the imposition of estimated income under Article 30(2) of the Act on the Payment of Cost of Living Benefits when the conditional beneficiary fails to fulfill the condition, and the imposition of estimated income in this case constitutes a legitimate invalidation.

(3) Whether the instant disposition is effective

Therefore, the disposition of this case, where the recognized amount of income of the individual household of this case is deemed to have increased as much as the assessed estimated income amount according to the disposition of constructive income of this case, also the disposition of this case is deemed to be null and void as the defect is serious and clear (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu6780 delivered on April 27, 199).

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Lee Lee (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)