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

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's argument at the appellate court to the following, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case merely was unlawful, although he joined the national pension around 1997 and paid the pension premium for not less than 10 years until February 2008. The plaintiff became entitled to the reduced old age pension under Article 62 (2) of the National Pension Act on June 28, 2009, and therefore the defendant shall pay the reduced old age pension to the plaintiff by changing it to the reduced old age pension.

However, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 11 (including a provisional number) is insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff joined the National Pension Service around 1997, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion based on a different premise is not acceptable (other allegations made by the plaintiff in the appellate court are all independent opinions and cannot be accepted).

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

Judges fixed-type (Presiding Judge) and Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu