(a) Whether the written objection can be seen as the president;

B. Nature of the survivor pension

A. According to the contents of the written objection submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant, since the disposition of return of the defendant's principal pension, etc. is unlawful, it is obvious that the plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition, and the facts of the grounds for the application are stated, the requirements of entry as the president of the lawsuit shall be satisfied. However, although the respondent raised a formal objection and the respondent did not become the defendant's superior administrative agency, it may be viewed as the defendant, it can be viewed as the defendant, it is illegal that the defendant, who received it, transferred it to the legitimate submission agency or returned it to the cause of the lawsuit

(b) A survivor's pension paid under the Military Aid Benefits Act shall have the nature of consolation money.

Article 3 of the source Act, Article 18 of the Military Aid Benefits Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Nu140 delivered on October 26, 1973 delivered on July 9, 1974

Plaintiff

Head of Jeonju District Branch Office

The defendant's disposition of return of KRW 69,200 to the plaintiff on March 14, 1973 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

On July 11, 1970, the non-party, who was the deceased non-party's mother, died in the military as a tort by other public officials, and the defendant paid 200,400,000 won to the plaintiff, who was the mother of the deceased non-party, and 67,200 won of 2,195,865 won of 2,195,000 won under the Military Aid Benefits Act. After then, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the State in accordance with the State Compensation Act against the State compensation Act, and received 2,195,865 won of 2,000 won of 2,00 won of 2,000 won of 2,000 won of 2,000 won of 2,000 won of 2,000 won of 2,000 won of 2,000 won of 1973.

There is no dispute between the parties that the defendant decided to dismiss it on May 7 of the same year. Accordingly, since the plaintiff's legal representative received 69,200 won of the above survivor's 69,200 won as consolation money, it did not claim consolation money, the above survivor's 69,200 won as the plaintiff's legal representative in the above state-of-the-state damages lawsuit, the above survivor's compensation and damages are not overlapped, so the defendant's disposition to return the above defendant's claim is unlawful and dismissed as the plaintiff's legal representative procedure is unlawful, and therefore the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of the principal court. In addition, since the plaintiff's claim was filed with the lapse of the period of release, the plaintiff's claim shall not be dismissed as consolation money, and even if so, the survivor's claim shall not be considered purely, and therefore, the plaintiff's

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff, without dispute, filed an objection to the purport that the defendant's revocation of the disposition against the defendant on the return of death's benefits and survivor's pension benefits, shall be dismissed by the defendant, and such objection shall be dismissed by the defendant only when permitted by the individual law, and if not, it shall be in accordance with the procedure of the source law, and such objection shall not be dealt with by the ground law.

However, according to the provisions of the source law, in the case of a request for cancellation or change of an illegal disposition by an administrative agency, the immediate higher-level administrative agency via the disposition administrative agency is filed, and the agency which submitted the lawsuit is wrong or defective in the form of the president, the party shall be transferred to the legitimate submission agency or the period for correction is designated and returned to the cause

However, according to the contents of the written objection (No. 1) submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant, since the disposition for return of the principal pension, etc. of the defendant is unlawful, it is obvious that the plaintiff sought the cancellation of the disposition, and the reasons for the application are stated, so the plaintiff must comply with the requirements of the written objection as the president. However, the plaintiff raised an objection without entering the title in the ledger, and the respondent was not a superior administrative agency of the defendant, and the respondent was the defendant without being the defendant's superior administrative agency. However, the plaintiff can be viewed as the plaintiff as the plaintiff. Thus, if the plaintiff's submission agency is wrong, if the plaintiff's submission agency is erroneous, the defendant shall transfer it to the legitimate submission agency or return it to the cause by designating the correction period in the form of the ledger, the defendant shall not be deemed to have immediately made a decision on the ground that it does not constitute a ground for objection. Therefore, it can be deemed that the plaintiff's objection was legitimate, and since the defendant's legitimate filing of the lawsuit has not been made until two months, the plaintiff can file a lawsuit without the judgment of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the bereaved family's pension paid under the Military Aid Benefit Act has the nature of consolation money paid to the deceased's bereaved family in order to protect the deceased's bereaved family, and it cannot be viewed that this has the nature of compensation for property of the deceased's deceased.

However, since there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the deceased non-party did not claim consolation money from the plaintiff's bereaved family members and the deceased person, and the State did not pay consolation money, the above recognition of consolation money and the bereaved family's bereaved family's consolation money cannot be overlapped.

Therefore, the disposition that the defendant returned KRW 67,200 to the above survivors' pension on the ground that the above damages and the main survivors' pension overlap with the above survivors' pension is not unlawful. Therefore, the disposition must be revoked. The plaintiff's claim for the main claim for the same purport is justified, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)