logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.06.23 2016나36698
급여
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff became a conditional recipient of livelihood benefits, subject to participation in projects necessary for self-support pursuant to Article 9(5) of the National Basic Living Security Act (hereinafter “Act”), around 2014.

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.

C. On October 13, 2014, the Defendant visited the Gu office (teleline counseling) to request the Plaintiff to obtain consultation to establish a self-support assistance plan by October 23, 2014. If the Defendant did not comply with the above consultation within the given period, the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff on October 21, 2014 that livelihood benefits may be suspended. On October 21, 2014, the Defendant sent again a letter to the Plaintiff with the same content.

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

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.

E. On January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of suspending livelihood benefits for conditional recipients of livelihood benefits on November 3, 2014, but the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on March 26, 2015 was rendered, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 15, 2015.

(Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap257). 【Ground of Recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 to 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff has no ability to work against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was judged to have no ability to work again from March 2015, and the defendant received livelihood benefits from the defendant.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not provide livelihood benefits for 11 months based on the false diagnosis certificate judged by the plaintiff to have ability to work.

Therefore, the defendant corresponds to the cost of living assistances for 11 months to the plaintiff.

arrow