logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.04.04 2017구합7832
군인연금 비해당결정 처분 취소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 13, 2012, the Plaintiff, a spouse of the deceased B, applied for the payment of a survivor pension to the Defendant.

B. On July 26, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of the survivor pension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that he did not have the right to receive a retirement pension or a wounded veterans’ pension (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The lawsuit in this case is unlawful with the lapse of the filing period.

B. The main text of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that “a revocation suit shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which the disposition, etc. is known,” and the main text of Article 20(2) provides that “a revocation suit shall not be instituted after the lapse of one year from the date on which the disposition, etc. is taken.”

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was served with the instant disposition on July 27, 2012.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit only after November 27, 2017, when 90 days from the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the instant disposition upon receiving the instant disposition, and one year has passed since the date on which the instant disposition was issued. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as the lapse of the filing period.

As to this, the Plaintiff failed to file a lawsuit within the period for filing a lawsuit as a site of law, and the land of law applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides that “If the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to them, the said cause may be supplemented within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.”

In addition, the proviso of Article 20(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act is to file a revocation suit even after one year has elapsed from the date of the disposition when there is a legitimate reason.

arrow