1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. On June 30, 1996, the Plaintiff (B) was in service as a police officer for not less than 20 years and retired on June 30, 1996, and was paid a lump-sum retirement pension pursuant to the Public Officials Pension Act, which

B. From July 2014 to September 2015, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 1,412,480 from the Defendant’s basic pension under the Basic Pension Act.

Meanwhile, prior to that, the Plaintiff did not apply for the payment of basic old age pension to the Defendant or determined as a beneficiary pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Basic Pension Act (Act No. 12617, Jul. 1, 2014; hereinafter “former Basic Old Age Pension Act”).

C. On October 15, 2015, the Defendant was notified of the list, etc. of the recipients of basic pensions (such as a lump-sum retirement pension and lump-sum retirement pension) under Article 3(3) of the Basic Pension Act from among the recipients of basic pensions from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor to the time.

On November 13, 2015, the Defendant decided to suspend payment of the basic pension pursuant to Article 17 of the Basic Pension Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not a beneficiary of the basic pension,” and notified the Plaintiff on November 17, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on March 7, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The recipient of the lump-sum retirement pension, one of the persons excluded from the payment of the basic pension under the Plaintiff’s Basic Pension Act, constitutes only a person who received it after the enforcement date of the Basic Pension Act, and thus, the Plaintiff who received the lump-sum retirement pension prior

In addition, the plaintiff was unable to apply for the payment of the previous basic old age pension due to the absence of law, and the defendant.