1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff married with the Defendant Intervenor B on November 14, 1981, and the agreement was shared on January 7, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff, while serving as a public educational official, retired on February 28, 2017 and received a monthly retirement pension from the Defendant from March 2017.

C. B on November 7, 2018, the Defendant requested the payment of divided pension against the Plaintiff’s retirement pension pursuant to Article 45 of the Public Officials Pension Act.

C. On December 27, 2018, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the claim under the foregoing paragraph, but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the change of retirement pension upon the claim for divided pension with the following content:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). At the request of the divorced spouse’s divided pension, you are informed that you will change and pay the retirement pension as follows:

The monthly amount of the changed pension: 2,135,570 won (former: 3,711,360 won) was determined according to the division ratio under the Public Officials Pension Act since April 34, 400, on the details of the calculation of the divided pension and the ratio of the divided pension for the period of recognition of marriage, the ratio of division under the Public Officials Pension Act of KRW 1,577,575,790 was determined on April 34, 40: the period of marriage recognition / the period of service x the period of employment x the commencement of change of 1/2 pension: From April 12, 2018, it was determined according to the division ratio under the Public Officials Pension Act.

(3) If a person is divorced on or after September 21, 2018, the non-existence of a de facto marital relationship is excluded from the calculation of the amount of installment benefits. (4) The grounds for recognition are without any dispute, and the purport of the arguments and arguments as stated in the Evidence A, Nos. 1, 3, 4, 1, and 2.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) while promoting a divorce procedure on two occasions around B and B in 2009 and around 2015, the Plaintiff divided and agreed to waive the Plaintiff’s rights to the Plaintiff’s pension instead of that, B did not have any right to the Plaintiff’s retirement pension. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff’s retirement pension is viewed differently from the foregoing paragraph 1, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.