2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

A. The Plaintiff filed an application for social security benefits with the head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 30, 2018, but the head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government deemed the date of disposition as “the date of disposition on June 28, 2018,” as seen in July 3, 2018.”

However, the date stated in the notice (Evidence A No. 3) sent to the Plaintiff is July 3, 2018, and any other documentary evidence that can identify the date of disposition has not been submitted. The date stated in the notice is deemed the date of disposition.

On the ground that “the recognized amount of income exceeds the standard for selection” was determined inappropriate for social security benefits (the livelihood benefits).

(A) As a result of the investigation of the income and property of the beneficiary of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is the summary of the case on January 1, 201, "the real estate of this case" is "the real estate of this case" owned by the plaintiff.

B determined that the disposition was taken on February 19, 2018, and it was assessed as the Plaintiff’s property.

As a result, the plaintiff was judged to be inappropriate for social security benefits on June 28, 2018 because the recognized amount of income is exceeded.

2. Since the applicant’s instant real estate was provisionally registered on March 31, 201 on the ground of the pre-sale agreement, the said real estate shall be deemed disposed of at the time of the said provisional registration and shall be excluded from calculating the Plaintiff’s property. If the point of time of disposal of the instant real estate is deemed as February 19, 2018, the point of time of disposal of the instant real estate, the sales price should be deducted from the property, even if it was consumed in the repayment of obligations

3. Determination: (a) there is no circumstance that the Plaintiff received all outstanding amounts at the time of the purchase and sale reservation; and (b) there is no evidentiary document as to the Plaintiff’s occurrence of bonds; and (c) the circumstance that the other party to the purchase and sale contract paid the outstanding amount instead of such payment

there is evidence for the remainder payment.