(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.12.15 2017구합69250

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2017.12.15 2017구합69250

유족급여 연금수급권자 변경 및 연금액 조?

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 1993, the Plaintiff reported marriage between the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) and the deceased, but on April 22, 1999, reported divorce.

The children C of the Plaintiff and the Deceased were born D, and E was born F.

B. On January 12, 2008, the Deceased felled in the construction site of H extension corporation located in G in Sung-si (hereinafter “the construction site of this case”) and died of two alleys, cerebral blood transfusions, and dykes.

C. C and E claimed bereaved family benefits to the Defendant on February 29, 2008.

Even after the Plaintiff had been living together with the deceased, the Defendant paid the survivors’ compensation annuity to C and E, based on the fact that de facto marital relationship with the deceased was terminated as a result of the Plaintiff’s full hedging with the deceased on December 2006.

On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased maintained a de facto marital relationship with the deceased by the time of his death, and requested the Defendant to recognize the status of the Plaintiff as the beneficiary of the survivors’ compensation annuity and adjust the amount of the survivors’ compensation annuity.

However, on April 7, 2017, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the de facto marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased was maintained until the deceased’s death.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap’s 1 to 3 evidence, Eul’s 1 to 7 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On October 11, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted that he only transferred his resident registration address to Pyeongtaek-si J, the Plaintiff’s mother’s residence, and thereafter maintained a de facto marital relationship with the deceased by the time of the death of the deceased.

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

B. Determination de facto marriage is a marital community life between the parties in terms of the family order in terms of the intention of marriage and objective social norms.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2019.07.18 2018구단100986

-울산지방법원 2017.11.23 2017구합521

-서울행정법원 2017.06.23 2016구합62504

-서울고등법원 2015.06.17 2014누66993

-서울행정법원 2020.05.15 2019구합74607