거부처분취소등
1. The plaintiff's main claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remainder.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. Since January 2010, the Plaintiff received national basic livelihood security benefits from the Defendant.
B. The Plaintiff received an asbestos injury surgery in 2010. On April 23, 2013, the Korea Environment Corporation recognized the asbestos injury, which is “original lung cancer of an asbestos grade” and “from April 24, 2013 to April 23, 2018,” and received an asbestos injury allowance of KRW 2,922,690 per month from the Defendant as an asbestos injury relief benefit under the Asbestos Injury Relief Act, from May 2013 to July 2013.
C. On May 30, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that payment of the National Basic Living Security Benefits was suspended since July 2013, since the amount of the relief benefit for asbestos injury that the Plaintiff was paid falls under “other income” when calculating the amount of income assessed for calculating the amount of national basic livelihood security benefits. As such, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that payment of the National Basic Living Security Benefits was suspended since July 2013. Accordingly, the Defendant did not pay KRW 721,820 in total and KRW 845,70 in total, 123,880 in total, and October 123, 2013.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment suspension disposition” on July 19, 2013, 67, 750 282,410, 350, 160 on July 19, 2013, 71, 910 29,750, 371,660 on August 20, 2013, including 139,660, 582, 160 721,820,820 on August 20, 2013. The unpaid amount of the monthly total amount of housing benefits (general) shall be unpaid on October 20, 2013. The unpaid amount of the non-paid amount of the monthly total amount of housing benefits (general), which is payable on October 23, 2013.
D. On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the amount of national basic livelihood security benefits that was not paid due to the instant suspension of payment, but the Defendant rejected the claim that the instant suspension of payment was lawful and valid on September 17, 2014, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have to pay the unpaid amount to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant refusal disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] are without dispute, Gap’s 1 to 4, and Eul’s 1.