1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff (B) was recognized as the spouse of the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) who died from an occupational accident, and as the beneficiary of the survivors’ compensation annuity under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”) from the Defendant, and received the survivors’ compensation annuity from October 20, 2015 to May 31, 2019.

B. Around the end of 2018, D(E) filed a petition with the Defendant that it was a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff on the part of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s police headquarters’s illegal receipt and demand prevention division investigated whether the Plaintiff’s eligibility for the survivors’ compensation annuity is lost.

(hereinafter “instant investigation”). C.

On June 28, 2019, the Defendant rendered a decision to collect the Plaintiff’s survivors’ compensation annuity, totaling KRW 76,568,310,00 received from November 1, 2016 to May 31, 2019, on the ground that “the Plaintiff maintained a de facto marital relationship with D and lost eligibility for benefits without reporting it to the Defendant,” under Article 84(1)2 of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, on the ground that “The Plaintiff received the survivors’ compensation annuity without reporting it.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not have a de facto marital relationship with D.

The plaintiff initially suffered from serious mental illness due to the death, etc. of the deceased, and D was approaching the plaintiff for nursing purposes and living with the money received from the plaintiff while living with the money no longer paid for nursing expenses, and filed a false petition with the defendant.

Nevertheless, without considering the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendant concluded that the Plaintiff and D were in de facto marital relationship from October 26, 2016, based only on D’s false statements without considering the aforementioned circumstances.

Therefore, this is made on the same premise.