In a case where the head of the Gu conducted a disposition to change social welfare services and benefits that reduces the livelihood and housing benefits paid to a beneficiary Gap by investigating the confirmation of a person eligible for basic livelihood security assistance to a person eligible for support, the case holding that the above disposition made on a different premise is unlawful on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the person Gap has a person eligible for support.

In a case where the head of the Gu conducted a disposition to change the social welfare service and the benefits that reduces the living and housing benefits paid to a beneficiary Gap by investigating the confirmation of the person who is obligated to support the basic livelihood security recipient under Article 23 of the National Basic Living Security Act, the case held that the above disposition is unlawful on a different premise, on the grounds that, in a case where a supply and demand agency is interpreted to have a faithful investigation in accordance with the relevant provisions when the person who is obligated to support his/her husband's income is reduced by marriage of his/her husband's income, even if his/her husband's income has monthly income and property, there is room for falling under the case where the person who is obligated to support is unable to support even if he/she has a person who is obligated to support, and it is difficult to view that there is a person who is obligated to support, and thus,

Article 2 Subparag. 5 of the National Basic Living Security Act; Articles 3, 5(1) and (3), 22, 23, 29, and 34 of the National Basic Living Security Act; Articles 4(1)2 and 5 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Basic Living Security Act; Article 35 of the Enforcement Rule of the National Basic Living Security Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the Busan Metropolitan Government Annual Government

March 8, 2012

1. The Defendant’s disposition of changing social welfare services and benefits rendered to the Plaintiff on June 20, 2011 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 9, 2006, the Plaintiff was selected as a recipient of assistance under the National Basic Living Security Act, and received livelihood benefits and housing benefits.

B. In accordance with Article 23 of the National Basic Living Security Act, the Defendant: (a) conducted an investigation into the income and property of a beneficiary and his/her dependents at least once a year; and (b) confirmed the appropriateness of entitlement to benefits and benefits; (c) as a result of the investigation conducted by the Defendant on the Nonparty’s income, the Nonparty’s wife’s husband’s income as his/her husband’s income was investigated into KRW 2,700,000, and KRW 107,973,069, and determined that the Nonparty’

C. Accordingly, on June 20, 201, the Defendant rendered a disposition to change social welfare services and benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) that reduces the living and housing benefits of KRW 361,780,00 that the Plaintiff received to KRW 133,620 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (The Defendant adjusted the Plaintiff’s living and housing benefits to KRW 242,930 on July 20, 201 without a separate written notice upon the Nonparty’s giving birth to the Nonparty’s child.)

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff has an obligatory provider to support his/her husband and wife, the Plaintiff’s relationship with his/her husband and wife is not good due to the Plaintiff’s divorce and family settlement, and thus his/her husband and wife do not support the Plaintiff at all. As such, the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a case where a obligatory provider is unable to receive support. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry is as follows.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the National Basic Living Security Act (hereinafter “the Act”), the term “person obligated to support” refers to a person responsible for supporting a beneficiary under Article 5, who is a lineal blood relative of the first degree and his/her spouse, and according to Article 3 of the Act, the basic principle is to supplement and develop benefits under this Act under the premise that the beneficiary makes the recipient make the maximum efforts by utilizing his/her income, property, ability to work, etc. in order to maintain and improve his/her living, and the support and protection under other Acts and subordinate statutes are given priority over the benefits under this Act. In addition, Article 5(1) of the Act provides that a beneficiary is a person who has no obligatory provider, who is unable to provide support, or is unable to receive support with a obligatory provider, and a person who is unable to receive support with a obligatory provider under Article 5(1) is unable to receive support due to a person under the obligatory duty to support, or a person who is a lineal descendant or a person with a severe disability under Article 5(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act who is unable to receive support from a person under the Act.

2) In full view of the definition of an obligatory provider, the basic principle of assistances, and the scope of eligible recipients, where a recipient has an obligatory provider who has the ability to provide support, and where a recipient is able to receive support, the assistance agency should be deemed to have changed the recipient’s assistances pursuant to Article 29 of the Act.

3) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 9, 9, 1-2, 1-2, 2, 3, 3, 3 and 4 of the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, 3, and 4 of the Plaintiff’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son

However, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff divorceds with his spouse on March 5, 2004, she left home and left home due to home inequalitys. The non-party did not inform her parents of contact details or place of residence at the time of living status survey upon the application of the basic recipient of the National Pension in 2006 and stated that she personally communicate with her parents, and that her parents’ appraisal is not good. The non-party, at the time of the oral argument in this case, has her husband and her ability to support the plaintiff. The non-party cannot be found to have submitted a confirmation of the fact that she is unable to support the plaintiff because she could not economically have sufficient financial capability to support her. In other words, Article 34 of the Act provides that the plaintiff may not change her ability to support the beneficiary's assistance to a person under duty to support the law without any justifiable reason, and the supply and demand institution may, if it is difficult to request the plaintiff to submit necessary data or data to support.

4) Therefore, the instant disposition on a different premise must be revoked on the ground that it was unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Sang-hoon (Presiding Judge)