logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.11.08 2018구합2100
국민연금(유족연금) 수급권 미해당 결정 처분 취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

A. On July 4, 1967, the Plaintiff married with the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”), and reported a divorce on September 5, 2016.

B. The Deceased received old age pension under Article 61 of the National Pension Act from the Defendant on November 7, 2017.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment of a survivor pension with the Defendant pursuant to Article 72(1) of the National Pension Act on January 26, 2018 on the ground that the existence of a marital relationship with the deceased, and the Defendant rendered a decision on the refusal of entitlement to a survivor pension against the Plaintiff on January 26, 2018 on the ground that “if a beneficiary of an old-age pension dies, the spouse under Article 72(1)1 of the National Pension Act is entitled to a survivor pension under Article 73(1)1 of the National Pension Act, but the Plaintiff is not a legal spouse due to divorce, but is not entitled to a survivor pension because it

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) On September 5, 2016, a divorce between the Plaintiff and the Deceased was caused by a dispute over the deceased’s symptoms, language violence, etc., and thus, it constitutes the largest divorce. 2) Even if a divorce is not the most likely, the Plaintiff was living together with the deceased even after the divorce, the Plaintiff and the Deceased agreed to file a marriage report after the divorce, but did not result in the deceased’s death, and the Plaintiff applied for permission for use of enshrinement facilities. Therefore, a de facto marriage relationship exists as a result of the Plaintiff’s application for permission for use of enshrinement facilities.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. 1) On July 27, 2016, the deceased’s divorces between the Plaintiff and the deceased, etc. (A) In the instant case, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the deceased with the following content.

arrow