beta
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. The plaintiff was married with B around 1990 and was divorced in around 1997. Since around 2008, the plaintiff is living together with C, who is the husband, and there is D, E, F, and G between the plaintiff and B. Since 2010, the plaintiff is living together with D, and the remaining children are currently living with B.
B. The Defendant designated B, E, F, and G as a conditional recipient of livelihood benefits and housing benefits pursuant to the former National Basic Living Security Act (amended by Act No. 12933, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “Act”).
C. However, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that on November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff collected KRW 8,816,844 from October 10, 2013 to August 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff, as a person obligated to support E, F, and G (hereinafter “E, etc.”) who is a recipient of the National Basic Living Security, failed to perform the duty to support despite having the ability to support.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 6, Eul evidence 2 to 7 (including the relevant numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As to Article 5(3) of the Act and the former Enforcement Decree of the National Basic Living Security Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26206, Apr. 20, 2015; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Act”).
Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that a person obligated to support has no income or property, and the Plaintiff, a person obligated to support, such as E, has no ability to provide support. Article 4(1)3 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (hereinafter “instant provision”).
The Defendant’s instant disposition is an unlawful disposition that lacks the requirement to collect basic livelihood security expenses, as it falls under “in the absence of supporting capacity,” as prescribed in Article 46 of the Act. In addition, the Plaintiff is obligated to return basic livelihood security expenses under Article 46 of the Act, even if the Plaintiff is obligated to return the basic livelihood security expenses.