사회복지서비스 및 급여부적합결정처분취소
1. The decision that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on April 16, 2015 that the Plaintiff is inappropriate to provide social welfare services and benefits shall be revoked.
2.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From July 5, 2008, the Plaintiff (B) was selected as eligible for the payment of basic old age pension under the Basic Old Age Pension Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Basic Pension Act (Act No. 12617, May 20, 2014) and received basic old age pension.
B. On June 31, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that KRW 500 million (hereinafter “instant key amount”) was deposited in the bank account (one bank C; hereinafter “instant account”) in the Plaintiff’s name as of March 31, 2014, and suspended the payment of the Plaintiff’s basic old age pension as of June 30, 2014.
C. After that, on March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for payment of a basic pension under the Basic Pension Act to the Defendant. On April 16, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff is inappropriate for a person eligible for a basic pension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s recognized amount of income exceeds the standard amount of basic pension selection.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant case’s account is a borrowed name account opened by the Plaintiff’s Dong and Dong, and the key amount of the instant case deposited in the instant account is also D’s property. Therefore, when calculating the Plaintiff’s recognized amount of income, the key amount of the instant case ought to be excluded from the scope of property that determines the amount of income conversion into the Plaintiff’s property. Nevertheless, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful. Nevertheless, the instant disposition was unlawful. 2) The Defendant merely stated that the Plaintiff’s recognized amount of income exceeds the standard amount of basic pension selection while rendering the instant disposition and did not specify specific grounds for disposition. Thus, the instant disposition
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
(c) Determination 1) Dogs, Gap evidence 3, 4, and 5 (including each number;