[Judgment of the court below]

The Government Employees Pension Service

March 9, 2016

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap3723 decided March 27, 2015

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's non-approval disposition of survivor pension succession made against the plaintiff on September 27, 2013 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's assertion

On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the decision of reexamination, and subsequently revoked the above claim and sought revocation of the decision of non-approval of succession to a survivor pension, which is the original disposition, on April 17, 2014. The claim was subsequently amended in an exchange of a lawsuit to modify the purport of the lawsuit. On April 17, 2014, the date of filing the new lawsuit, was three months after September 27, 2013, which is the date of original disposition, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because it fails to comply with the period of filing the lawsuit.

B. Determination

1) According to Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, a revocation lawsuit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which the disposition, etc. is known. However, in cases where a request for administrative appeal is possible, the period from the date on which the original copy of the written adjudication is served when the request for administrative appeal is filed. In addition, in cases where a previous lawsuit is withdrawn by exchanging the purport of the claim and the new lawsuit is deemed to have been instituted, compliance with the period for filing a lawsuit against the new lawsuit shall be determined as of the time when the lawsuit is modified in principle. Meanwhile, in cases where the content of the purport of the claim itself is unclear as to whether the party asserts the subject matter of lawsuit, but if the party asserts that it is a subject matter of lawsuit due to the cause of the claim, the court must clarify whether the purport of the claim is identical to the fact on which the claim is made, and if the purport of the claim is altered and clarified later, it cannot be deemed a new claim

2) According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the records, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee against the Defendant’s non-approval disposition on September 27, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On December 11, 2013, a request for dismissal decision following the review of the said Committee was served on the Plaintiff on December 23, 2013. On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the Defendant as the Public Official Pension Service, and the purport of the request was stated as “the revocation of the non-approval disposition on succession to the survivors’ pension made by the Defendant on December 11, 2013,” and it is reasonable to recognize that the Plaintiff submitted the request for review to the Plaintiff on April 7, 2013, the Plaintiff’s amendment of the purport of the request to the Plaintiff’s non-approval disposition on succession to the survivors’ pension and the purport of the request was revoked.

3) In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit and stated the subject of revocation as “decision on non-approval of succession to the survivors’ pension” rather than “decision on rejection of the Review Committee,” the Defendant designated as “public official pension” rather than “Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee,” and the Plaintiff could not have confirmed the date of the instant disposition at any time, the Plaintiff’s filing of a complaint on February 18, 2014, and it can be deemed that the Plaintiff asserted that the “decision on non-approval of succession to the survivors’ pension by Defendant Corporation as of September 27, 2013,” as the cause of the claim, was the subject of the instant lawsuit, and that the claim was clearly modified through the application for modification of the respective purport of the claim as of April 7, 2014 and October 28, 2014.

Therefore, as long as the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal within 90 days from the date on which he became aware of the disposition of this case and received the original copy of the written adjudication, the lawsuit of this case is lawful as complying with the period for filing the lawsuit, and the defendant's main safety defense is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s verteebral disability has “the physical restriction due to the niversity of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives,” and “the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives.” The

Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) A public official pension disability diagnosis report dated August 8, 2013 at ○○ University Hospital on △△△ Hospital

(a) Injury or disease name which causes disability: Status of vertebrode and verterode after vertebrode, damage to the left-hand side of the 5th patrinesis;

B) The fixed date of disability: February 7, 2005

C) Various kinds of tests, dogs, and the main contents of treatment up to the date: 1981 Hemb disc surgery (military hospital), 1994 disc disc surgery, △△△ Hospital’s emergency removal surgery on June 13, 2003, and △△△ Hospital’s emergency removal surgery on August 5, 2004, and implementation of the long-term ex post facto control and post control surgery on August 5, 2004.

(d) Opinions on the completion of treatment or the determination of disability: 4-5 summary -1,00 square marries, and 5 square marries loss: Termination of treatment and determination of disability;

(e) Contents and conditions of disability: restriction on movement to the full oil of the summer (4-5 to 1,00) and restriction on pedestrian traffic due to the sewage of the fore part of the fore part and the fore part of the fore part and the fore part of the fore part and the like;

2) On October 10, 2013, ○ University Hospital’s △△△△ Hospital, the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs Public Officials Pension verteba and the Gne system’s functional obstacle dogs.

(A) the extent possible to carry out the vertebrate(s) movement;

Sheet (units: Do) located within the main text of the table (units: Do) to the extent possible for the exercise within the normal range of movement, 30-10 left turn 30-10 left turn 10 left turn 10 left turn after digging 30-15 after digging 30 to the extent possible for the exercise within the normal range of movement; 30 10-15 left turn

B) Neighborhood intensity test urine (including whether it is complete or incomplete withouter) : incomplete marine

3) A statement of an obstacle to public official pension campaign in October 10, 2013 at ○○ University Hospital’s △△△△ Hospital

The scope of the campaign in the Section B.C.

The method of measuring the table table in the main text shall be within the normal scope of exerciseable range, e.g., e., e.s. 20 20 e.s. 40 40 e.s. 40

4) Results from commissioning the examination of medical records to the head of the Guro University Hospital at the court of first instance

A) As to spine of the Plaintiff

On August 5, 2004, the Plaintiff was subject to the 4-5 summary observation, 5-1,000 post-1, with respect to the escape symptoms of the 4-5 side signboards at ○○ University Hospital on August 5, 2004 and the 5-1,000 emergency situations, and the 5-1,00 emergency. The Plaintiff determined that “brates are limited to not more than 1/2 of the area of normal sports.” The Plaintiff’s medical records on the 1/5 emergency and additional trends or the unstable side of the 5-1,00 emergency.”

B) Regarding the Plaintiff’s title

The Plaintiff’s condition is determined as falling under “a person (at least 3/4 of the upper part of the third part of a bridge or the area where the exerciseable area is limited) of the three sections of a bridge.” The restriction on the exercise of the Plaintiff’s left-hand headal part is due to the damage of the fifth part of the lower part of the last part, rather than the damage of the brain and the main part of the water, rather than the damage to the ethic part of the last part.

C) Regarding additional inquiries

The Plaintiff’s “satisfying method and equipment satisfying method and equipment satisfying method and equipment satisfying method” rather than solely on the ground of stiffye escape certificate, rather than on the ground of stiffye escape certificate. In the case of the Plaintiff, the 4-5 stiffye escape certificate, which is repeated in the past, and the variability of the surrounding spine, can be the cause of the occurrence of the 4-5th stiffye escape certificate, and its side effect and additional inverte in the past. The status accompanied by the spine satfy in the outside of the 5-1,000th stiffye in the case where the Plaintiff carried out spine satfy after the removal of the stiffy. The Plaintiff’s satfyeing method and equipment satisfye satching method is confirmed to be incomplete as a result of inspection, etc.

5) Results of this court’s entrustment of appraisal of medical records to the Samsung Seoul Hospital Head

A) As to spine of the Plaintiff

In the event that the 4-5th century, the 5-1th century, the ebrate pressure test, the ebrate ebrate ebrate, and the ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate, and the type of physical disorder ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate ebrates.

B) Regarding the Plaintiff’s title

In the case of the 5th century included in the 5th century, it is reasonable to preferentially apply the provisions of the 5th century to the 5th century, in addition to the provisions of the 5th century, in a case where there is a provision concerning the e-mail instead of the provisions concerning the e-mail, the e-mail shall be applied. The e-mail disorder of the Plaintiff was caused by the 5th century-1,000 ex-postpeach.

6) The result of this court’s fact-finding on Samsung Seoul Hospital and Nonparty 1

The reason why the Plaintiff implemented the 4-5 poppy, 5th to 1,00, and 4-5th to 1,000, and the 4-5th to 1,000, and the 4-5th to 5th to 1,000, and the 4-5th to 4th to 4th to 5th to 5th to 1,000, and the 5th to 1st to 1,000 to 1,000. Therefore, the reason why the Plaintiff performed the 4-5th to 4-5th to 1,00, the 4-5th to 1981, the 4-5th to 4-5th to 194, the 5th to 1,003th to 1,00, can be caused by the removal of the vertecopic effect on the copic escape.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute; Gap evidence 5-1, 2, and 3; the result of the commission of the examination of medical records to the head of the former University of Korea University of the first instance; the result of the fact-finding to the head of the former University of Korea of the first instance; the result of the fact-finding to the head of the former University of Korea of the first instance; the result of the fact-finding to the non-party 2 of the first instance court on November 11, 2014 and the fact-finding to the non-party 3 of the first instance court on January 22, 2015; the result of the fact-finding to the head of the Samsung Seoul Hospital of this court; the result of the fact-finding to the non-party 1 of Samsung Seoul Hospital of this court;

D. Determination

1) Determination on the Plaintiff’s spine disability grade

In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s current disability condition was 4-5 percent ever effective on August 5, 2004, 5-1 percent ever, and 5-1 percent ever, and vertebrate as a result of the tegratization of spine through the tegratization and the tegratization of equipment and devices, and the Plaintiff’s egratization of spine in order to prevent the Plaintiff’s side effects of the egratization and spine egratization from the egratization of spine egratization and spine egratization from the egratization of spine egrat egrat egrat egrat egrat egrat egrat egrat egrat egrat egrat egrat egrat egrat egr.

2) Determination on the Plaintiff’s disability in the bridge

In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the above facts, i.e., the disability of the Plaintiff’s left-hand satisfaction is the aftermathal disorder caused by the lethal escape certificate, which is caused by the damage to the fifth ethal root root, the Plaintiff’s fifth ethalism is an incomplete condition, and the fifth ethalism is an incomplete condition, and if there is a provision concerning the ethalism, it is necessary to preferentially apply the ethalism provision to the fifth ethalism in case there is a provision concerning the ethalism instead of the provision on the ethalism, Article 23 [Attachment Table 1] 7 B. 4(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Pension Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s right-hand satisfaction disorder falls under Article 23 [Attachment 1](b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Pension Act, the training opinion through the ethalism test, and the clinical ethalism test, etc., and thus the disability grade 12 applies.

3) Sub-decisions

Inasmuch as disability grades 8 and 12 are recognized due to vertebal marism due to the escape certificate to the Plaintiff, it does not fall under a case where a comprehensive disability grade is determined pursuant to attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Decree (where disability grades 2 through 10 is at least two parts).

Therefore, the Plaintiff does not fall under Article 3, Article 56 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 3(2), and Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Grade 1 through 7). Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful on the same premise.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance different from this conclusion is unfair, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It

[Attachment]

Judges Sung Pung-tae (Presiding Judge)