beta
Main Issues
Where the priority order of a bereaved family member to receive a pension is changed by amendment of the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State after application for registration, governing law
Summary of Judgment
In principle, administrative disposition should be taken in accordance with the law of the time of disposition. Therefore, even if the order of bereaved family members to receive a pension is changed by the amendment of the Act on Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, it is reasonable to handle it by the order of new pension paid in accordance with the revised Act of the time of disposition, not by the special provisions
[Reference Provisions]
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [General]
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 84Nu77 delivered on May 22, 1984 (Gong1984, 1145) 88Nu11926 delivered on July 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 1312) 92Nu13813 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong193,474)
Plaintiff-Appellee
Plaintiff’s Attorney Seo-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Defendant-Appellant
The Head of the Seoul Southern Veterans Branch Office
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu27203 delivered on March 24, 1993
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In principle, administrative disposition should be taken in accordance with the law of the time of disposition. Thus, in this case, even if the order of bereaved family members to receive pension is changed by the amendment of the Act on Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, it should not be governed by the law at the time of application for registration, unless otherwise prescribed by the special law of the above Act, and it should be dealt with by the new pension order changed by the revised Act at the time of disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu77 delivered on May
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law as otherwise pointed out.
The precedent of a party member is not different from that of a party member. All arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)