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

A. Pursuant to Article 9(5) of the National Basic Living Security Act (hereinafter “Act”), the Plaintiff became a conditional recipient of livelihood benefits provided under the condition that he/she will participate in a project necessary for self-support (hereinafter “self-support project”).

The defendant has established and operated a self-support plan for each beneficiary to systematically support self-support of conditional recipients pursuant to Article 28 (1) of the Act.

B. On October 1, 2014, the Defendant sent a letter demanding consultation to formulate a self-support assistance plan because the Defendant is conditional recipients to the Plaintiff, and thus, can receive livelihood benefits on condition that he/she will participate in self-support projects.

In addition, on October 13, 2014, the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff, by October 23, 2014, requesting that the Plaintiff undergo consultation to establish a self-support assistance plan by visiting the Gu office (tele consultation), and if the Plaintiff fails to comply with the consultation within the above period, it may suspend livelihood benefits due to nonperformance of conditions. On October 21, 2014, the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff on October 13, 2014, stating the same contents as the official document written by October 13, 2014.

However, the official documents dated October 13, 2014 and October 21, 2014 were returned to the absence of a closed door.

C. On November 3, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the suspension of livelihood benefits pursuant to Article 30(2) of the Act on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to implement the conditions under which the Plaintiff should participate in self-support projects.

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry in Gap's 1, 2, and Eul's 2 through 5 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was visited the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office before the instant disposition and consulted on self-support projects.

Nevertheless, since the defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that the plaintiff did not comply with the consultation, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b)be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.