Law Firm Yang Hun-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

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

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal, addition, or deletion as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○○ The first instance court’s text 3 shall be followed from the 9th to the 4th following.

3) The Defendant becomes aware of changes in the family relation registration information of the senior beneficiary by sharing the family relation registration information under the Electronic Government Act even without reporting the junior beneficiary of pension. Thus, if the Defendant, who was aware of the circumstances leading to changes in the entitlement to pension, did not notify C, etc. of the occurrence of pension benefits, the extinctive prescription shall not run from the point of social security perspective. In addition, C, etc., not only did the Plaintiff have been aware of the Plaintiff’s recidivism before filing a marriage report in Korea on June 2016, 6,10, but also could not submit a certificate of the family relation registration record to be attached to the written request for the transfer of entitlement to pension, and thus, the extinctive prescription shall not run until June 10, 2016. Accordingly, C, etc.’s right to claim the payment of survivor pension has not expired, and the Plaintiff received the pension

○ The first, fifth, and fifth, the first, following the 4th sentence of the first instance judgment, all of which are "court" to "Seoul Administrative Court."

○○ 5th to 7th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th to 7th, 200, 200, 32820 of the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2018Nu32820), and C filed an appeal and filed an appeal to 200th, 201.

○ The following contents shall be added to the 7th end of the first instance judgment.

Meanwhile, as seen above, the right of a person with the same priority or a person with the same priority to claim a transfer of entitlement to a senior beneficiary (hereinafter referred to as “the right to claim a survivors’ pension”) and the specific right to the survivors’ pension (hereinafter referred to as “the right to receive a survivors’ pension”) arising from the decision of the Minister of National Defense on the claim for a transfer of entitlement to a senior beneficiary shall be deemed to apply the five-year extinctive prescription period

○ 7th day below the 7th day of the judgment of the first instance, and the 7th day below is deleted.

○ The following shall be added to the 7th day below the first instance judgment:

(3) In light of the above, the court below's determination that the defendant's right to receive the survivor pension was automatically transferred to E by the plaintiff's re-appellant, but the defendant's right to receive the survivor pension is not automatically transferred to C, etc. However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff's right to receive the survivor pension or the right to receive the survivor pension with the same priority in the order of priority as the loss of prior beneficiary's right to receive the survivor pension shall be acquired by exercising the right to claim the survivor pension and the right to receive the survivor pension shall be determined by the Minister of National Defense. From this point of view, the defendant lost the right to claim the survivor pension after the plaintiff's re-expl

○ The following is added to the 8th sentence of the first instance judgment and the 15th sentence.

Furthermore, as to the assertion that C, etc. was unable to exercise the right to claim the payment of survivor pension due to the Plaintiff’s non-existence of the fact that C, etc. was unable to exercise the right to claim the payment of survivor pension, the extinctive prescription cannot be run on the ground that C, etc. was not a legal disability preventing the Plaintiff from exercising the right to claim the payment of survivor pension, and even if this is not so, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to find that C, etc. was not aware of the Plaintiff’s recidivism on June 10, 2016, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the purport of the statement and the entire argument of evidence No. 16-1 and the whole argument, C, etc. did not exercise the right to claim the payment of survivor pension even if the Plaintiff knew that he could have filed

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Lee Jong-chul

Judges Lee Jae-chul