2011du525 Revocation of revocation of the decision to pay a survivor pension

00 Ghana

AED in Ansan-si

미성년자이므로 법률행위대리권 대행자 백▲▲

Attorney Lee In-bok et al.

National Pension Service

Seoul Songpa-gu AUUU

Representative President 000

Objection

Boli-si AAA

Attorney Lee In-bok et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Du3475 Decided December 15, 2010

April 13, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

Article 73 (1) of the National Pension Act refers to any of the following persons whose livelihood is supported by a current or former insured at the time of his/her death:

In this case, the standard of recognition for a person who has been or was an insured person shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 1(1) and 2(2) of the same Act provides that "the bereaved family pension shall be paid only to a person with the highest priority order in accordance with the order of each subparagraph of paragraph (1)."

According to such delegation, Article 47 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Pension Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21922, Dec. 30, 2009) (Attached Table 1) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21922, Dec. 30, 2009) provides that the spouse shall be recognized: Provided, That in the case of the spouse, the spouse shall not be recognized as a person who has clearly failed to perform his/her duty of support on the grounds of separation from home and disappearance, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of this case").

However, the enforcement decree of this case does not always recognize the spouse as a person whose livelihood was supported by the current or former insured at the time of the death of the current or former insured, but excludes the cases where the current or former insured does not clearly perform the duty of support due to reasons such as separation from home and disappearance, etc., and it is reasonable to view that the reason such as separation from home and disappearance, etc. is an example of cases where the current or former insured of the National Pension clearly fails to perform the duty of support at the time of the death of the current or former insured, and therefore, the enforcement decree of this case does not constitute invalid provision without delegation under Article 73(1

In the same purport, the court below determined that the defendant's assistant intervenor, the deceased's spouse, cannot be seen as falling under "a person who clearly failed to perform the duty of support due to reasons such as running away from home and disappearance, etc." and therefore is just in accordance with the above legal principles and records. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to "a person whose livelihood had been maintained by the current or former insured under Article 73 (1) of the National Pension Act at the time of his/her death, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the part resulting from participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn

Justices Yang Chang-soo

Justices Kim Yong-deok