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

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 3, and Eul evidence 1 and 9:

A. On November 30, 2007, the Deceased was discharged from military service with quasi-defluence and died on March 16, 2008 after the Deceased’s retirement pension was received.

B. On April 17, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that he is the deceased’s spouse and claimed for a survivor pension under Article 26 of the Military Pension Act. However, on August 11, 2008, the Defendant’s filing date of the marriage report in the documents claiming the survivor pension submitted by the Plaintiff was corrected on March 1, 2008, which is the date of the deceased’s death, from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2008. The rectification of the family relations register should be made with the permission of the supervisory court except minor matters in principle. Since the rectification of the date of the marriage report in the above marriage certificate was made without the permission of the supervisory court, it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff as the deceased’s legal spouse. ② After confirming the resident registration record card for marriage verification, the Plaintiff’s filing date of the divorce report constitutes the Plaintiff’s de facto marriage and the deceased’s filing date of the deceased’s resident registration under Article 34(1) of the Military Pension Act except for three months and the deceased’s domicile.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff and the Deceased maintained their family life by completing a marriage report on March 24, 1981 and providing two children under a chain, etc. The Plaintiff and the Deceased were under consultation on August 11, 2003 as a matter of the Plaintiff’s obligation. However, even though they continued to maintain their de facto marriage until the deceased’s death, the Plaintiff’s report of marriage was completed again before the deceased’s death. Therefore, even though the Plaintiff was entitled to receive the survivors’ pension as the legal or de facto spouse of the deceased, the instant disposition that the Defendant reported differently is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

[Military Pension Act]

Article 3 (Definitions)

(1) The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

4. The term "bereaved family member(s)" means any of the following persons who are supported by a person who is or was a soldier at the time of his death (in case of the payment of disaster compensation as provided in Article 31, it is not possible whether or not the person is supported):

(a) A spouse (including a person who was in a de facto marital relationship, but excluding a spouse who was married after the age of 61 after retirement);

Article 26 (Survivor's Pension)

(1) If a person who is or was a soldier falls under any of the following subparagraphs, his/her bereaved family members shall be paid a survivor pension:

1. Where the person who has the right to receive a retirement pension dies;

C. Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 2 through 6, and the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding with respect to ○○○○○, Gyeong-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and the purport

(1) On March 24, 1981, the Plaintiff got married with the Deceased to lead a family life, and divorced from the Deceased on August 11, 2003 due to the Plaintiff’s debt.

(2) On July 2007, the Deceased, while serving in the military, died on November 30, 2007 on the ground that blood cancer occurred and received treatment from the National Armed Forces Capital Integration Hospital, and was discharged from military service on November 30, 2007. After discharge, the Deceased died on March 16, 2040 on the part of the National Armed Forces Capital Integration Hospital. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20344, Mar. 31, 2008>

(3) Meanwhile, at around 10:30 on March 31, 2008, immediately before the death of the deceased, Nonparty 1, who is the deceased, submitted a marriage report on behalf of the plaintiff and the deceased, on behalf of the non-party 2, who is the person in charge of civil petition service at ○○○, Jinnam-gun, Seoul (hereinafter “instant marriage report”).

(4) However, on April 1, 2008, Nonparty 2 did not process the above marriage report as soon as the receipt of the above marriage report and entered it into a computerized receipt and entry on April 10, 2008, which is the following day, and registered as a marriage report on April 1, 2008, and Nonparty 1 requested correction of the family relation register if the deceased died on April 1, 2008 at the latest on March 31, 2008. Nonparty 2 confirmed that the time to submit the marriage report was the transfer of the deceased’s death, and corrected ex officio from April 1, 2008 to March 31 of the same year.

(d) Markets:

(1) According to Article 3(1)4(a) and Article 26(1)1 of the Military Pension Act, in the event a person who is or was a soldier dies, a survivor’s pension is required to be paid to the spouse (including a person in a de facto marital relationship, but excluding a spouse married after age 61) supported by the person at the time of his/her death.

(2) In this case, as to whether the Plaintiff’s legal or de facto spouse of the deceased at the time of the deceased’s death who is a beneficiary of the survivor pension under the Military Pension Act, the health care unit and the report of marriage take effect upon the receipt of the report, and the entry of the family register in the family register is not an effective requirement (see Supreme Court Order 81S21, Oct. 15, 1981). According to the above facts, the non-party 1, who is the deceased’s death, submitted the marriage report of this case to the public official in charge of the civil petition service at 0:30 on March 31, 2008, which is the deceased’s death, at around 10:30, the public official in charge of the civil affairs, who is the public official in charge of the civil affairs, submitted the marriage report of this case to the public official in charge of the marriage register at around 10:0 on April 1, 208, which is the following day, and thus, the report was effective when the marriage report was filed by the public official in charge of this case.

As to this, although the date of marriage report between the plaintiff and the deceased was corrected ex officio from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2008 by a public official in charge of the same year, such correction was null and void, the marriage report between the plaintiff and the deceased was null and void on April 1, 2008. This is null and void as a marriage report for the deceased since the deceased died on March 31, 2008. Even if the effect of marriage report can be acknowledged between the plaintiff and the deceased on domestic affairs, the marriage report in this case was null and void because there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the deceased on marriage, but it was already effective when the marriage report in this case was submitted to the public official in charge of the deceased on March 31, 2008, and there was no sufficient evidence that the reported person had reached ex officio rectification of marriage between the plaintiff and the deceased on April 1, 2008, and there was no error in the agreement between the plaintiff and the deceased on March 31, 2008.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff is a spouse in a legal marital relationship with the deceased at the time of the death of the deceased. Thus, the Plaintiff is a bereaved family member under Article 3(1)4(a) of the Military Pension Act who has the right to receive a survivor pension. Thus, the instant disposition that the Defendant reported differently is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Jeong Ho-sung (Presiding Judge)