1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff maintained the eligibility as an employer-provided policyholder under the National Health Insurance Act from March 30, 1993 to January 7, 2015, and maintained the eligibility as an employer-provided policyholder on January 8, 2015 until April 30, 2015. On May 1, 2015, the Plaintiff retired from the workplace and lost the eligibility as an employer-provided policyholder.

On June 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant on June 29, 2015 to the effect that the Plaintiff was retroactively admitted as a dependent until March 30, 1993, when reporting the qualification of the dependent as an employment provided policyholder, and the Plaintiff acquired the eligibility as an employment provided policyholder. However, the Defendant did not accept this on the same day and issued a disposition to recognize the eligibility as a dependent from May 1, 2015, when the Plaintiff lost

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds, as the Plaintiff’s assertion on the legitimacy of the instant disposition is unlawful: (a) there is no dispute; (b) there is no entry of the evidence No. 1; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings.

The plaintiff's error in calculating the acquisition date of a dependent's eligibility was reported at the time when the defendant was informed of the acquisition date of a dependent, but did not receive any guidance therefor from the defendant.

Since a plaintiff made a report on the eligibility of a dependent due to unavoidable reasons not attributable to himself, the eligibility of a dependent should be recognized retroactively until March 30, 1993 as a locally provided policyholder.

In violation of the principle of trust protection, the counselor of the defendant customer center informed the plaintiff that the plaintiff does not meet the eligibility requirements of his/her dependent over a long-term period of time, and the plaintiff was at the latest after filing a report on the qualification of his/her dependent. Thus, the disposition of this case violates the principle of trust protection because it infringes

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Judgment

A dependent;