1. The decision that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on April 14, 2014 not to approve the survivor pension succession shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B, as CB was employed by the Maritime Affairs and Port Construction Office of the Maritime Affairs and Port Authority on November 19, 1988, and was used in brain fluorial color on June 30, 1990, retired from office on June 30, 1990, and died on March 13, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). B

The deceased married with D on September 1, 1961, and D on August 25, 1974.

C. On July 18, 1976, the deceased reported a marriage with E on July 18, 1976, and began his/her life as a married couple, but the agreement was married on January 5, 1979. On December 7, 1979, he/she reported the marriage with E and lived together with E, but E was withdrawn around 1986.

The plaintiff began to work as the deceased from around 1987 as a married couple, but did not make a report of marriage.

E. On June 23, 2001, the Plaintiff and E reported a divorce on June 23, 2001, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Deceased reported a marriage on August 27, 2001.

F. On April 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for succession to a survivor pension with the Defendant pursuant to Article 56(1)2 of the Public Officials Pension Act. On April 14, 2014, the Defendant decided not to approve succession to a survivor pension on the ground that “the Plaintiff reported a marriage on August 27, 2001, the deceased retired, and the de facto marital relationship was confirmed at the time of marriage report prior to the time of marriage report, as the de facto marital relationship was confirmed with the former denial (E), and thus cannot be subject to a survivor pension under Article 3(1)3 of the Public Officials Pension Act.”

(g) On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee (hereinafter “instant disposition”). However, on August 2014, the request for review was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8, 10, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 10 through 13, witness F's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he started a marital life with the Deceased from around 1987, before the Deceased’s retirement, and that at the time, the former denied E remains out and remains.