Plaintiff (Attorney Lee In-bok et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Government Employees Pension Service

March 20, 2015

1. On September 27, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of non-approval for succession to a survivor pension rendered against the Plaintiff 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. On July 21, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that, while serving as a public official of Grade V in extraordinary civil service in △△ City, the deceased Nonparty 4 was a beneficiary of retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act, and that, on July 21, 2013, the deceased was a person with at least 19 years of age who was supported by the deceased at the time of his death, the Plaintiff filed an application for succession to survivor pension with the Defendant on August 9, 20

B. On September 27, 2013, the Defendant rendered a non-approval of the Plaintiff’s succession to the survivors’ pension (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disability name of the Plaintiff’s disability as a result of the deliberation by the Public Officials Pension Benefit Council’s disability falls under class 8 (the remaining person of spine physical disability) of the disability grade under Articles 3(2) and 45(1) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”).

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s verteebral disability has “the physical restriction due to the niversity of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives,” and “the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives of the nives.” The

Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) A public official pension disability diagnosis report dated August 8, 2013 at ○○ University Hospital on △△△ Hospital

(a) Injury or disease name which causes disability: state of verteburology and post-octic pressure, damage on the left-hand side-hand side of the 5th century;

B) The fixed date of disability: February 7, 2005

C) Various tests, dogs, and the main contents of treatment up to the date: Hub disc surgery (military hospital) in 1981, 1994, △△△ Hospital’s disc operation in 1994, △△△ Hospital’s emergency removal method on June 13, 2003, △△△△ Hospital’s emergency removal method on August 5, 2004, and implementation of the post-brupt control method and post-bris control method that are far-reaching to this point

(d) Opinions as to the completion of treatment and the determination of disability: 4-5 summary -1,00 square marries and 5 summary chronic loss: Termination of treatment and determination of disability;

(e) the content and condition of disability: restriction on movement to the full oil of the summer (4-5 - 000) and the walking site due to the sewage of the fore part of the earth, which has a very inconvenience in daily life due to the sewage of the fore part.

2) On October 10, 2013, ○ University Hospital’s △△△△ Hospital, the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs Public Officials Pension verteba and the Gne system’s functional obstacle dogs.

A) Scope of movementable invertebrate(s)

Sheet (units: Do) located within the main text of the table (units: Do) to the extent possible for the exercise within the normal range of movement, 30-10 left turn 30-10 left turn 10 left turn 10 left turn after digging 30-15 after digging 30 to the extent possible for the exercise within the normal range of movement; 30 10-15 left turn

B) Neighborhood intensity test urine (including whether it is complete or incomplete withouter) : incomplete marine

3) A statement of an obstacle to public official pension campaign in October 10, 2013 at ○○ University Hospital’s △△△△ Hospital

The scope of the campaign in the Section B.C.

The method of measuring the table table in the main text shall be within the normal scope of exerciseable range, e.g., e., e.s. 20 20 e.s. 40 40 e.s. 40

[Non-party 3, on August 8, 2013, entered the Plaintiff’s left-hand brupt 20 and 0 of the Plaintiff’s crupt crupt crupt crupt crupt crupt crupt crupt crupt crupt crupt crupt crupt crupt crupt crush crush crush crush crush crush crush crush crush crush crush crush cru

4) Results from commissioning the examination of medical records to the head of Korea University Hospital in this Court

A) As to spine of the Plaintiff

The plaintiff's condition is determined to be "a person whose actual exerciseable area in spine is limited to not more than 1/2 of the normal exerciseable area".

B) Concerning the left-hand interest of the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff’s condition is determined as falling under “a person (at least 3/4 of the upper part of the third part of a bridge or the physical exerciseable area is limited)” of the third part of the third part of the bridge. The restriction on the movement of the Plaintiff’s left-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-on-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-in-hand-in-fact

C) Regarding additional inquiries

The Plaintiff’s “4-5 summary, 1,000 post-1, 200, 200, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, and 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, and 3; the result of the request for the examination of medical records to the head of the Guro University Hospital in this Court; the result of the fact-finding conducted with respect to the non-party 2 who is the professor of the Guro University in this Court; the result of the fact-finding conducted with respect to the non-party 3 to the non-party 11, 2014 and the result of the fact-finding conducted with respect to the non-party 2 of the ○○ University Hospital Hospital in this Court; the purport of the whole pleadings;

D. Determination

1) Relevant provisions

Article 3(1)3(b), Article 3(2)2, Article 56(1)1 of the Public Officials Pension Act, and Article 3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that a person aged 19 or older who was a public official who has the right to receive a retirement pension shall be paid a survivor pension to a person with a disability falling under the grade 1 through 7 of the disability grade. Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the disability grade shall be in accordance with [Attachment Table 3], in cases where the number of disabilities falling under the grade 2 through 10 is at least two parts, the disability grade shall be determined for two parts of the serious disability in accordance with [Attachment Table 3] and then the disability grade shall be determined according to the disability grade [Attachment Table 4].

2) Determination on the Plaintiff’s spine disability grade

A) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s vertecule movement is 80 degrees in the front and rear sofacule movement (i.e., 70 degrees in e., e., 120 degrees in e., e., 120 degrees in e.g., e., 70 degrees in e., e., e., e., 10 degrees in e., e., e., 30 degrees in e., e., e., e. 10 degrees in e., e., e., 30 degrees in e., e., e., e. 10 degrees in e., e., e., e. 10 degrees in e., e., e., e. 10 degrees in e., e., e., e., e., 10 degrees in e.).).

B) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Enforcement Rule [Attachment 1] 1] 7. b. 2] provides that “the disability grade for the conical escape certificate shall not be recognized as a physical disability regardless of whether it was performed or not, and the disability grade shall be applied as prescribed in the following subparagraphs 3 through 5)” (5) provides that “in cases where the vertebrate is carried out after the removal of a conical signboard, class 8 shall apply.” Since the Plaintiff’s vertebral disability grade falls under class 8, the Plaintiff’s vertebral escape certificate after the removal of a conical signboard.”

However, as seen in the above facts, the Plaintiff’s spine disability is not merely a cause of side escape, but is also a cause of the vertebrate colon’s depression and spine instability. Thus, unless there is a separate provision on the vertebrate colon’s depression and spine’s instability, each provision of the Enforcement Rule [Attachment 1] 7.B., which is a provision on side-off escape, does not apply, and each provision of the Enforcement Rule [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] 7.A], which is a general principle, shall be applied. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3) Determination on the Plaintiff’s disability in the bridge

A) According to the above facts, since the scope of exerciseable scope of the Plaintiff’s left-hand abundrance is about 60 degrees, which are the normal range of 0 degrees ( normal 20 degrees) and 10 degrees ( normal 40 degrees) ( normal 40 degrees), the Plaintiff’s bridge’s disability constitutes “a person whose exerciseable area of the pipe section is limited to 3/4 or more” in [Attachment Table 1] [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree, and falls under subparagraph 7 of Grade 8 of the disability rating (attached Table 3] of the Enforcement Decree, as it constitutes “a person whose exerciseable area of the pipe section is limited to 3/4 or more.”

B) On this issue, the Defendant asserts that “the disability of a bridge and a sloping” in attached Table 1] 9-A. A. 9 of the Enforcement Rule provides that “the disability of a bridge and a village refers to the disability of a bridge and a village, etc. caused by damage to the terminal, excluding the cerebral and sloping disorder and the sloping disorder (classified function or mental disorder), and that the Plaintiff’s disability of a sloping hall on the left-hand side due to the operation on the 5th anniversary of the surgery on the sloping disorder, not the disability caused by damage to the terminal, sloping system, etc., but is not a disability caused by damage to the brain and sloping system, and thus, the disability grade of a bridge is considered to be considered in the judgment on the spine disability, and it is not possible to recognize the disability grade of the bridge separately.

However, as seen in the above facts, the plaintiff's left-hand fall within the scope of "any leg and any sloping disorder caused by damage to the thale of the fifth pathalism included in the mathal boundary, not due to brain and salute damage." Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4) Sub-committee

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s spine disability falls under subparagraph 5 of the disability grade 6 (the remaining body disability in spine) of the Enforcement Decree [Attachment 3], and the Plaintiff’s bridge disability falls under subparagraph 7 of the disability grade 8 (one part of the third unit part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part part of the bridge) of the Enforcement Decree [Attachment 3], and the Plaintiff’s disability falls under class 4 of the total disability grade of the Enforcement Decree [Attachment 4]. Therefore, the Plaintiff was a public official of 19 years old or over who was entitled to receive a retirement pension and is entitled to succeed to the survivors’ pension as a disability grade

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges and decorations (Presiding Judge) Lee Jong-hee-gu