1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Details of the Plaintiff’s subscription to the National Pension Scheme on January 1, 1988 (employment of the same workplace fire insurance company) on August 21, 1996, when acquiring eligibility as workplace-based insured persons (employment of the same workplace-based insured persons) on August 22, 1997, when acquiring eligibility as workplace-based insured persons (employment of the same workplace-based insured persons). On March 28, 2003, when acquiring eligibility as workplace-based insured persons on August 1, 2003, when acquiring eligibility as workplace-based insured persons (employment of the same workplace-based insured persons as workplace-based insured persons as of December 1, 2004 (employment of the same workplace-based insured persons as of February 24, 2015).

B. On February 2, 2007, including the application for exception to payment, the plaintiff's application for exception to payment (in the absence of income, it falls under Article 91 (1) 1 of the National Pension Act), and on February 28, 2008, the defendant asserted that on June 6, 2008, the defendant decided to extend exception to payment by his authority pursuant to Article 91 (1) of the National Pension Act and Article 61 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Pension Act, the defendant did not deal with the following ex officio pursuant to Article 61 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Pension Act. However, the ground for exception to payment under Article 91 (1) 1 of the National Pension Act does not constitute an ex officio treatment under Article 61 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Pension Act.

On April 28, 2009, the defendant sent the notification of resumption of payment and the notification of exception to payment on May 6, 2009, the plaintiff's application for exception to payment and the decision of extension of exception to payment made on May 6, 2009 determined that the plaintiff's income is low and that it constitutes a reason under Article 91 (1) 1 of the National Pension Act

On May 12, 2009, the transmission of the application for the return of resumption of payment and guidance on resumption of payment on May 31, 2010 to the application for exception of payment on May 12, 2009 (in unpaid disposition from May 1, 2009)

C. Around January 2012, the Defendant sent a “written guidance on the details of subscription to the National Pension Scheme” to the Plaintiff. In the “current subscription status” column among the above documents, “customers” was first subscribed to the National Pension Scheme on January 1, 198 and first subscribed to the National Pension Scheme on January 21, 2012.