1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff’s assertion as set forth in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on September 6, 2016 due to the violation of jurisdiction, the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission’s decision falls under a judgment made by the competent administrative appeals commission. The Defendant, which neglected the Plaintiff’s intent to be tried by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, and received an administrative appeal by the Incheon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, is deemed to have a significant procedural defect. As such, the instant judgment is not effective. 2) The Plaintiff deprived the Plaintiff of the entitlement to basic pension and redeems the basic pension already paid on the ground that the Plaintiff had already received a lump-sum retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act based on Article 3(3) of the Basic Pension Act contrary to the principle of retroactive legislative prohibition.

The plaintiff is 66 years of age at the time of the enforcement of the Basic Old Age Pension Act, and was a beneficiary under the Basic Old Age Pension Act prior to the enforcement of the Basic Old Age Pension Act. It violates the principle of prohibition of retroactive legislation under Article 13(2) of the Constitution to deprive the plaintiff's entitlement.

The disposition of this case to recover the total amount of basic pensions already paid even though the requirements of each subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Addenda to the Basic Pension Act are met is unlawful and unfair. The provisions of Article 5 of Addenda to the Basic Pension Act also deprives the Plaintiff of 50% of the right to receive basic pensions by an Act enacted later, and thus violates the principle of prohibition of retroactive legislation under Article 13(2)

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion