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 November 24, 2016, the Plaintiff’s partner B retired from office as a public official of Grade V in extraordinary local service in the Guri-si and died on November 24, 2016 while receiving a retirement pension from the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that there was a disability falling under the disability grade 1 through 7 under Article 3(2)2 of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act as a child of 19 years of age or older at the time of the death of the Plaintiff and applied for succession to the survivor pension

C. On February 24, 2017, the Defendant decided on February 24, 2017 that the Plaintiff was not a bereaved family member under Article 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff fell under class 8 of the disability grade as stipulated in Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s exerciseable area for the control of the abstinence is limited to not less than 3/4 compared to the normal scope due to the ground that the Plaintiff’s disability level was not a bereaved family member under Article 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act due to the ground that it falls under class 8 of the disability grade.

The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee, but was dismissed by the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee on August 30, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The purport of all entries and arguments in Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul's No. 1 and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 by the parties falls under class 8 of the disability grade as a person who was unable to use one pipe among the three sections of one bridge, and also falls under class 15 of the disability grade as well as class 9 of the disability grade, according to the disability diagnosis certificate of May 29, 2017 and the official movement disability report of May 29, 2017, which was made after the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties constitutes also class 15 of the disability grade.

Therefore, according to the comprehensive disability grade table, the plaintiff's disability grade falls under class 6.