1. On October 27, 2015, the Defendant’s investigation to verify and investigate social security benefits provided to the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff and the non-party B are those who are in a prison relationship with the non-party C and D.

B. The Plaintiff (E) and Nonparty F (G) who is the wife of the Plaintiff have received basic old age pension as a husband and wife.

C. On October 15, 2015, the Ministry of Health and Welfare issued an order to verify social security benefits for occupational pension recipients in each Do, Jeonnam-do conducted an investigation to verify social security benefits (hereinafter “instant investigation”). D.

Jeonnam-do notified the Defendant that, as a result of the determination of an occupational pension under the instant investigation, the Plaintiff received occupational pension as a police officer, in principle, excluded from the scope of a basic pension beneficiary under the Basic Pension Act, but constitutes a special provision under the Basic Pension Act as a recipient of the previous basic old-age pension, only 1/2 of the basic pension can be paid.

E. Accordingly, on October 27, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition to reduce the basic pension already received with the Plaintiff to 1/2 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition on December 15, 2015, but was dismissed on January 21, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 4 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s receipt of the lump-sum retirement pension as the Plaintiff’s alleged police officer is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff’s birth B, and thus, the instant disposition that mitigated the basic pension under the premise that the Plaintiff received the above occupational pension is unlawful

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. In full view of the above basic facts, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 20, witness H’s testimony and the overall purport of the argument, Eul, the plaintiff’s birth, who was the plaintiff, was enlisted as a combat police on April 29, 1960 and was discharged from military service on March 2, 1963, and again applied for a police recruitment examination under the plaintiff’s name.