On May 4, 2024, at the headquarters of the High People's Court in Hanoi, the public appeal trial of labor case No. 01/2024/TLPT-LD dated March 8, 2024 regarding "Disputes over Social Insurance and cancellation of individual decisions" was opened.
Due to the First Instance Labor Judgment No. 01/2024/LD-ST dated January 19, 2024 of the People's Court of Hai Duong province on appeal.
According to the Decision to bring the case to appeal trial No. 4693/2024/QD-PT dated April 19, 2024, between the parties:
* Plaintiff: Social Insurance of H province;
Address: No. G, T Street, Ward Q, City H, Hai Duong Province;
Legal representative: Ms. Tran Thi H, position: Director;
Authorized representative: Ms. Luong Thi Thu T, position: Head of Inspection and Examination Department (according to authorization document No. 181/BHXH-TTKT, dated February 9, 2023), has a request for trial in absentia.
* Defendant: Mr. Nguyen Cong T1, born in 1944, absent;
Address: Village L, Commune A, District N, Hai Duong Province;
Authorized representative: Mr. Do Van C, born in 1943, was present;
Address: No. B, H, Ward N, City H, Hai Duong Province.
CASE CONTENT
According to the petition, during the proceedings as well as at the first instance trial, the plaintiff, the Social Insurance of H province, stated:
H province's Social Insurance requested Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 to return the incorrect pension amount of 260,773,761 VND. Because, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 (Mr. T1) received disability benefits from May 1985 according to Decision No. 06/QD dated April 20, 1985 of Hai Phong Cement Additives and Soil Enterprise. After that, the Department of War Invalids and Social Affairs of H city introduced to Department T4 to continue paying the pension regime for employees from the third quarter of 1985, according to the Subsidy Payment Introduction Letter dated May 29, 1985 and the Transfer Introduction Letter No. 939/GT of Department T. Based on the payment records handed over by the Department of War Invalids and Social Affairs, Hai Duong province's Social Insurance paid social insurance benefits to Mr. T1, monthly pension regime from the third quarter of 1985.
In 2014, Mr. T1 was petitioned and denounced by a citizen (Mr. Vu Khac C1) for not receiving retirement benefits in accordance with regulations. Based on the content of the petition and denunciation of the citizen about Mr. T1's not receiving retirement benefits in accordance with regulations, Hai Duong Provincial Social Insurance reviewed and compared Mr. T1's retirement benefit records with Section 5 of the Temporary Regulations on Social Insurance Regimes for State Employees, issued by the Government Council together with Decree 218/CP dated December 27, 1961. According to the records, Mr. T1 did not meet the age and years of service requirements to receive retirement benefits in accordance with regulations. At the time of retirement, Mr. T1 was only 42 years and 3 months old and had paid social insurance for 21 years and 1 month, not meeting the age and 30 years of service requirements under Decree 218/CP. Mr. T1 is only eligible for disability benefits.
On July 4, 2017, H Province Social Insurance issued Decision No. 01/QD-BHXH on terminating the pension regime for Mr. T1. From June 1, 2017, the monthly pension was 2,920,700 VND, the reason for termination: due to incorrect declaration of working time from April 1964 to February 1967.
On July 5, 2017, H Provincial Social Insurance issued Decision No. 07/QD-BHXH on monthly allowance according to Decision 613/QD-TTg; accordingly, Mr. T1 is entitled to monthly allowance from June 1, 2017, with an allowance level of 790,412 VND.
Because Decision No. 07/QD-BHXH was issued in an incorrect format, on July 10, 2017, H Provincial Social Insurance issued Decision No. 09/QDBHXH to replace Decision No. 07/QD-BHXH.
On June 28, 2017, H Province Social Insurance received a request from Mr. T1 regarding the family's financial difficulties and inability to repay the amount of money received incorrectly according to Conclusion No. 752/KL-BHXH dated June 23, 2017, so it requested the Social Insurance agency not to recover the amount of money received incorrectly. Therefore, the Social Insurance agency has not issued a decision to recover the amount of money received incorrectly from Mr. T1.
On March 23, 2022, H Provincial Social Insurance continued to receive petitions from citizens.
On March 24, 2022, H Provincial Social Insurance issued the following decisions: Decision No. 312/QD-BHXH on the recovery of pension received in violation of regulations by Mr. T1, the recovered amount is 317,516,100 VND and Decision No. 315/QD-BHXH on readjusting the benefit period according to Decision No. 613/QD-TTg, determining the monthly benefit level is 446,267 VND, Mr. T1 is entitled to receive back pay from May 2010 to March 2022, which is 143 months, the total amount is 56,742,339 VND, this decision replaces Decision No. 09/QD-BHXH dated July 10, 2017.
On April 15, 2022, H Provincial Social Insurance received Mr. T1's application for pension restoration. Based on the content of the application and the attached documents, H Provincial Social Insurance worked with Mr. T1, Mr. T1's authorized representative, to verify the documents provided by Mr. T1 but there was no basis to accept Mr. T1's request. Therefore, on May 6, 2022, H Provincial Social Insurance issued Notice No. 718/BHXH-TTKT notifying the settlement of Mr. T1's application, accordingly not accepting Mr. T1's application for pension restoration.
After issuing the Decisions and Notices, H Provincial Social Insurance did not receive any complaints from Mr. T1. On June 2, 2022, H Provincial Social Insurance continued to invite Mr. T1 to work to explain to Mr. T1 that there was no basis to restore Mr. T1's pension, and requested that Mr. T1 return the amount of money he had received in violation of regulations. However, Mr. T1 did not comply. Therefore, H Provincial Social Insurance requested the Court to force Mr. T1 to return the amount of money he had received in violation of regulations, which was VND 260,773,761. Specifically: The Provincial Social Insurance paid Mr. T1 a pension from May 1985 to May 2017 of VND 317,516,100. However, Mr. T1 was only paid under the labor loss regime of VND 56,742,339. Therefore, Mr. T1 must return the difference he has received, which is VND 260,773,761 (Two hundred and sixty million, seven hundred and seventy-three thousand, seven hundred and sixty-one dong).
The defendant, the defendant's representative, presented:
Disagree with the lawsuit request of the Social Insurance of H province because Mr. T1 was granted a pension by the State and the Insurance Agency was the paying unit, he did not make those decisions himself to receive them. He did not falsify his working time to receive the insurance regime, but the person who wrote the decision made a mistake. The defendant's working process is as follows: From April 1964 to February 1967, he worked at the N district Industrial and Agricultural Enterprise. During his time working here, around May 1966, the Enterprise sent him to study welding at the H province Mechanical Factory. At that time, the Enterprise also sent Mr. Nguyen Trong T2 to study with him, studying as a metal worker; Mr. H1 (now deceased) studied as a lathe worker. In January 1966, after finishing his studies, he returned to work at the N district Industrial and Agricultural Enterprise. In March 1967, he joined the army. In 1976, he transferred to the Department of Construction of Hai Phong City and was assigned to the Mining and Transportation Enterprise as a mechanic. In 1980, he was assigned to work at the Cement Additive Soil Enterprise and worked there until 1985 when he retired due to poor health and loss of working ability.
Working with him at the N District Workers' and Farmers' Enterprise during the same period were Mr. Vuong Ba K (Mr. K has passed away), Mr. Nguyen Duc L and Mr. Nguyen Huu L1. Mr. K has a retirement decision; Mr. L and Mr. L1 both have certificates confirming that they worked with him during the period 1964 - 1967.
Regarding the retirement decision, he received 5-6 original copies from the Hai Phong Cement Additive Soil Enterprise to submit to state agencies for benefits when he returned home. He still has the original copy, Decision No. 07 dated April 20, 1985, which clearly stated that he was entitled to retirement benefits from May 1, 1985.
He was allowed to retire because he was no longer able to work, had parotiditis, and the Hai Phong City Medical Examination Council concluded that he was no longer able to work, so the Enterprise allowed him to retire and receive a pension, the benefit level was 73%, not because he was past the retirement age as stated in the insurance.
He did not agree with the Decision of the Social Insurance of H province to terminate his pension and switch to disability benefits; did not agree with the Insurance claiming back from him the amount of 260,773,761 VND.
He requested to cancel Decision No. 01/QD-BHXH dated July 4, 2017 on termination of insurance benefits; Decision No. 07/QD-BHXH dated July 5, 2017 on monthly benefits under Decision No. 613/QD-TTg dated May 6, 2010 of the Prime Minister; Decision No. 09/QD-BHXH dated July 10, 2017 on replacing Decision No. 07/QD-BHXH dated July 5, 2017 of the Social Insurance of H province; Decision No. 312/QD-BHXH dated March 24, 2022 on recovering pensions received in violation of regulations; Decision No. 315/QD-BHXH dated March 24, 2022 on adjusting the benefit period under Decision No. 613/QD-TTg; Notice No. 718/BHXH-TTKT dated May 6, 2022 on not accepting Mr. T1's application for pension restoration.
He requested the Social Insurance of province H to restore his pension.
In the First Instance Labor Judgment No. 01/2024/LD-ST dated January 19, 2024 of the People's Court of Hai Duong province, it was decided: Pursuant to Articles 32; 34; 37; 38 of the Civil Procedure Code; Pursuant to Section 5 of Decree No. 218-CP dated December 27, 1961; Decree No. 163-CP dated July 4, 1974; Circular No. 09-NV dated October 18, 1974.
1. Partially accept the plaintiff's lawsuit request: Force Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 to return the illegal pension amount of VND 106,086,648 to the Social Insurance of H province.
2. Partially reject the plaintiff's claim: Force Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 to refund the amount of VND 154,687,113.
3. Partially accept the defendant's request:
– Cancel Decision No. 312/QD-BHXH dated March 24, 2022 on the recovery of pension received in violation of regulations of H. Provincial Social Insurance.
– Cancel Decision No. 315/QD-BHXH dated March 24, 2022 on readjusting the benefit period according to Decision No. 613/QD-TTg of the Social Insurance of H province.
4. Partially reject the defendant's request to: - Cancel Decision No. 01/QD-BHXH dated July 4, 2017 on terminating the insurance regime of the Social Insurance of H province.
– Cancel Decision No. 07/QD-BHXH dated July 5, 2017 on receiving monthly allowances according to Decision No. 613/QD-TTg dated May 6, 2010 of the Prime Minister of the Social Insurance of H province.
– Cancel Decision No. 09/QD-BHXH dated July 10, 2017 on replacing Decision No. 07/QD-BHXH dated July 5, 2017 of the Social Insurance of H province.
– Cancel Notice No. 718/BHXH-TTKT dated May 6, 2022 regarding the non-acceptance of Mr. T1's application for restoration of retirement benefits of the Social Insurance of H province.
5. Do not accept Mr. T1's additional request: Request the Social Insurance of province H to restore his pension.
In addition, the judgment also announced the interest rate for late execution of the judgment, announced the court fees, and the right to appeal according to the provisions of law; after the first instance trial, on February 2, 2024, the defendant, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1, filed an appeal against the entire judgment.
At the appeal hearing, the appellant maintained the content of the appeal.
The defendant's representative stated: Basically, the case remains the same as presented at the first instance; based on the decisions of the Department of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs of City H, based on the conclusion of the medical examination; according to Circular No. 163 and Decree No. 218, Mr. T1 is eligible for retirement benefits; because Mr. T1 is a person with a period of hard and toxic labor, and is eligible to apply Article 42, Section 5 of Decree 218 to enjoy retirement benefits. Request the Trial Panel to accept Mr. T1's appeal.
The representative of the High People's Procuracy in Hanoi participating in the trial gave his opinion:
Regarding the proceedings: The court of first instance correctly and sufficiently identified the participants in the proceedings; during the settlement process and at the appeal hearing, the participants in the proceedings and those conducting the proceedings correctly implemented the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code at the appeal level.
Regarding the content: After analyzing and evaluating the evidence, it is found that the court of first instance has resolved the case in accordance with the law, the judgment of first instance has fully considered the rights and obligations of the parties, and has a legal basis, so the defendant's appeal has no basis to be accepted. Therefore, it is requested that the Appellate Court, based on Clause 1, Article 308 of the Civil Procedure Code, not accept the appeal and uphold the judgment of first instance.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
After examining the documents in the case file examined at the trial and based on the results of the debate at the trial, the Trial Panel finds:
Regarding litigation:
[1] Regarding the determination of the disputed legal relationship: The Plaintiff, the Social Insurance of H province, filed a lawsuit requesting Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 to return the amount of pension received in violation of regulations; this is a dispute over social insurance (pension money) as stipulated in Point d, Clause 1, Article 31 of the Civil Procedure Code and is a dispute that is not required to go through the mediation procedure at the grassroots level; during the process of resolving the case, the Defendant, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1, made a counterclaim requesting the Court to consider canceling the decisions of the Social Insurance of Hai Duong province, which are decisions related to the enjoyment of retirement and disability benefits and policies of Mr. Nguyen Cong T1; these are individual administrative decisions related to the case, the agency issuing the administrative decision is the Social Insurance of H province, so the authority to resolve the case according to the first-instance procedure belongs to the People's Court at the provincial level. Therefore, although the People's Court of Nam Sach district, Hai Duong province accepted the case, it later transferred the case to the People's Court of Hai Duong province and the People's Court of Hai Duong province accepted it for settlement according to the first-instance procedure, which is in accordance with the provisions of Point d, Clause 1, Article 32 of the Civil Procedure Code; Article 32 of the Law on Administrative Procedure.
[2] Regarding the determination of the status of the parties participating in the proceedings and the presence of the parties at the trial: The court of first instance determined the plaintiff and defendant in the case in accordance with the provisions of law; at the first instance and appellate trials, there were absent parties but there were authorized representatives present, or there was a request for trial in absentia, so the Court still proceeded with the trial in accordance with the provisions of Article 227; Article 228; Article 296 of the Civil Procedure Code.
* About content: Considering the appeal of Mr. Nguyen Cong T1, the Appellate Court found:
[3] Based on the documents in the case file, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 retired under the Decision No. 06/QD and Decision No. 07/QD, both dated April 20, 1985; although these two decisions have different issuance numbers, their contents are basically the same, such as age, years of service, salary coefficient, etc. Accordingly, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 had a working period of 21 years and 1 month (including 10 years in the army). However, currently, the Social Insurance and Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 have not reached an agreement on the working period from April 1964 to February 1967. According to the above decisions, during this time, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 worked at the Hai Hung Province Mechanical Factory, and the Social Insurance does not accept this working period of Mr. T1. According to Mr. Nguyen Cong T1, from April 1964 to February 1967, he did not work at Factory C2, but he worked at the Industrial and Agricultural Enterprise of District N. He also provided a number of witnesses, as well as the records of a number of people who worked with Mr. T1 during this time at the Industrial and Agricultural Enterprise of District N. Specifically: According to Mr. Vuong Ba K's retirement records kept at the Social Insurance of Hai Duong province, Mr. K worked from March 1964 to April 1965 at Enterprise C. Thus, there is a basis to determine that from 1964 to 1967, Enterprise C existed; In 1979, due to the merger of administrative boundaries of N district and T district, it was called N district Mechanical Enterprise. Based on the statements of Mr. Nguyen Trong T3, Nguyen Huu L2, Nguyen Duc L, who had worked at Enterprise C, from 1964 to 1967, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 worked with them at this Enterprise, then Mr. T1 was sent to study at the C2 province Mechanical Factory. In the decisions on Mr. T1's pension, it is shown that he participated in the revolution from April 1964, but the statement that Mr. T1 worked at H mechanical factory during this time may have been due to a mistake when issuing the decision. Because Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 had studied here. From there, there is basis to affirm that Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 worked at N district Industrial and Agricultural Enterprise from April 1964 to February 1967. Therefore, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1's working time must be calculated from April 1964 to April 20, 1985, which is 21 years and 1 month (including 10 years in the army converted to 15 years) as determined by the Court of First Instance. Accordingly, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1's working time is 26 years and 1 month. However, according to the records, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 was born in March 1944, and by the time of the retirement decision (May 1, 1985), Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 was only 42 years and 3 months old. Thus, based on Article 45, Section 5 of Decree No. 218-CP, dated December 27, 1961 of the Government; Circular No. 84-TTg, dated August 20, 1963 on the application of pension and severance allowance regimes due to loss of working capacity for State employees; Decision No. 21-HDBT dated August 8, 1981, although Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 had a working period converted to 26 years and 1 month, at the time of his retirement he did not meet the age requirement (55 years old according to the provisions of Decree 218, or 50 years old according to the provisions of Decision No. 21). Although Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 had a conclusion of loss of working capacity assessment, he was not in the category of "Civil servants who worked before the August 1945 Revolution, or worked during the resistance war against the French and were awarded medals or badges...". Therefore, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 does not meet the conditions for receiving a pension according to regulations, but the decisions of the Hai Phong Cement Additive Soil Enterprise still determine that Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 is entitled to a pension, which is against the regulations. Mr. T1 is only eligible for the disability insurance regime according to the regulations in Section 4 of Decree No. 218-CP dated December 27, 1961. Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 has a working period of 26 years and 1 month, so according to Article 2 of Decision 60-HDBT dated March 1, 1990, Mr. T1 is entitled to a monthly disability allowance after the allowance has expired according to the regulations in Article 1 of Decision No. 60; but the Social Insurance of H province calculates that Mr. T1 is entitled to half of the converted working period of 11 years, which is baseless. Pursuant to Article 35, Section 4 of Decree No. 218, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 will receive a disability allowance based on his actual working time of 21 years and 1 month. From May 1985 to August 1985 (4 months), each month is equal to 61% of main salary with a total amount of 394,956 VND. However, on September 18, 1985, the Council of Ministers issued Decree No. 236-HDBT, Mr. T1's working time is calculated according to the converted time of 26 years and 1 month. Pursuant to Article 14, Article 17 of Decree 236, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 is entitled to a disability allowance equal to 51% of main salary; From September 1985 to May 2017 (381 months), Mr. T1 is entitled to a disability allowance of 211,034,496 VND; the total amount Mr. T1 receives from May 1985 to May 2017 is 211,419,452 VND. Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 received a pension from May 1985 to May 2017 with an amount of 317,516,100 VND, so Mr. T1 is obliged to pay back to the Social Insurance of province H 106,086,648 VND as determined by the Court of First Instance.
[4] Regarding Mr. Nguyen Cong T1's counterclaim to cancel administrative decisions, it is found that:
[4.1] Regarding Decision No. 01/QD-BHXH dated July 4, 2017 on termination of insurance benefits:
In terms of authority, order and procedures for issuing the Decision are implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Social Insurance; Decree No. 01/2016/ND-CP dated January 5, 2016 and Decision No. 1414/QD-BHXH dated October 4, 2016.
Regarding the content: Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 enjoyed retirement benefits from May 1985 until the decision to terminate his insurance benefits was issued on June 1, 2017, with different salary levels at different times, but Article 1 of the decision determined that the monthly pension received was 2,920,700 VND, which is incorrect. Because the reason for termination stated in the decision was: Due to incorrect declaration of working time from April 1964 to February 1967. However, as analyzed above, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1's working time is enough to be eligible for pension benefits, but Mr. T1's age is not enough to be eligible for pension benefits (because when he retired, Mr. T1 was only 42 years and 3 months old), so the termination of Mr. Nguyen Cong T1's pension benefits by the provincial Social Insurance is in accordance with regulations, but the Social Insurance needs to adjust the reason for termination and the monthly pension level that Mr. T1 has received to match Mr. T1's working time and pension benefits, so it is not necessary to cancel this decision.
[4.2] Regarding Decision No. 312/QD-BHXH dated March 24, 2022 of the Social Insurance of H province on the recovery of pensions received in violation of regulations and Decision No. 315/QD-BHXH dated March 24, 2022 on adjusting the time to receive benefits according to Decision No. 613/QD-TTg, it is found that: As analyzed above, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 has a continuous working period of 26 years and 1 month, so the time to calculate Mr. T1's labor capacity loss benefits must be calculated according to the working years. Meanwhile, Decision 312 and Decision 315 only calculated the loss of working capacity regime for Mr. T1 at 22 years and 1 month based on the provisions of Article 1 of Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 60-HDBT dated March 1, 1990 on amending the allowance regime for civil servants who quit their jobs due to loss of working capacity, and Decision 613/QD-TTg dated May 6, 2010 on monthly allowances for those who have worked from 15 years to less than 20 years, whose period of receiving loss of working capacity allowance has expired, which is not in accordance with the provisions of law. Therefore, the Court of First Instance accepted this request of Mr. T1, annulling the above Decisions 312 and 315 so that the Social Insurance of Hai Duong province can issue decisions in compliance with the provisions of law.
[4.3] Regarding Decision No. 07/QD-BHXH dated July 5, 2017 of Hai Duong Provincial Social Insurance on monthly allowance according to Decision No. 613/QD-TTg dated May 6, 2010 of the Prime Minister; Decision No. 09/QDBHXH dated July 10, 2017 on replacing Decision No. 07/QD-BHXH dated July 5, 2017 of H Provincial Social Insurance: Both of these decisions have determined Mr. T1's working time incorrectly; Although the content of these two decisions is no longer legally valid because the Social Insurance of H province has issued Decision No. 315/QD-BHXH dated March 24, 2022 on adjusting the period of receiving benefits according to Decision No. 613/QD-TTg to replace these two decisions, but as analyzed above, Decision 315/QD-BHXH is incorrect and must be canceled, so it is necessary to consider canceling both Decision 07/QD-BHXH dated July 5, 2017 and Decision No. 09/QD-BHXH dated July 10, 2017 of the Social Insurance of H province; at the same time, the Social Insurance of H province must perform its public duty of re-issuing the decision in accordance with the provisions of law; Although the Court of First Instance determined that Decision No. 312/QD-BHXH dated March 24, 2022 and Decision No. 315/QD-BHXH dated March 24, 2022 were incorrect and must be annulled, it did not force the Social Insurance of H province to perform its public duties in accordance with the provisions of law, which was an omission, so there is a basis to amend the judgment of first instance.
[4.4] Regarding Notice No. 718/BHXH-TTKT dated May 6, 2022 on not accepting Mr. T1's application for pension restoration: In essence, this notice is a notice of not accepting Mr. Nguyen Cong T1's application for pension restoration; as analyzed above, because Mr. T1 is not eligible for pension benefits due to not reaching the prescribed age, Mr. T1's pension benefits must be terminated; the first instance judgment assessed that although the Notice was not accurate, it did not change the nature of the matter, so it was not necessary to cancel this notice.
[5] Synthesizing the above analysis, it can be seen that in the process of resolving the case, the Court of First Instance complied with the provisions of the law, but did not fully consider and ensure the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, so there is a basis to amend the first instance judgment as stated above. At the appeal hearing, the representative of the High People's Procuracy in Hanoi proposed that maintaining the original judgment was inappropriate.
[6] Regarding court fees:
– First instance court fees: The parties have their requests partially accepted so they do not have to pay first instance court fees.
– Appeal fees: Mr. T1 does not have to pay appeal fees. For the above reasons;
DECISION
Pursuant to Clause 2, Article 308; Article 309 of the Civil Procedure Code; amend the First Instance Labor Judgment No. 01/2024/LD-ST dated January 19, 2024 of the People's Court of Hai Duong province; specifically:
Pursuant to Articles 32; Article 34; Article 37; Article 38 of the Civil Procedure Code; Article 193 of the Administrative Procedure Law; Pursuant to Section 5 of Decree 218-CP dated December 27, 1961; Decree 163-CP dated July 4, 1974; Circular 09-NV dated October 18, 1974; Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH14 dated December 30, 2016 of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly regulating the levels of collection, exemption, reduction, collection, payment, management and use of court fees and charges.
Verdict:
1. Partially accept the plaintiff's lawsuit request, which is the Hai Duong Provincial Social Insurance: Force Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 to return the illegal pension amount of VND 106,086,648 to the H. Provincial Social Insurance.
2. Partially accept the counterclaim of the defendant, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1, and cancel the administrative decisions, including:
– Decision No. 07/QD-BHXH dated July 5, 2017 on receiving monthly allowances according to Decision No. 613/QD-TTg dated May 6, 2010 of the Prime Minister of the Social Insurance of H province.
– Decision No. 09/QD-BHXH dated July 10, 2017 on replacing Decision No. 07/QD-BHXH dated July 5, 2017 of the Social Insurance of H. province.
– Decision No. 312/QD-BHXH dated March 24, 2022 on the recovery of pensions received in violation of regulations of the Social Insurance of H province.
– Decision No. 315/QD-BHXH dated March 24, 2022 on adjusting the benefit period according to Decision No. 613/QD-TTg of the Social Insurance of H. province.
Require Hai Duong Provincial Social Insurance to perform its duties and public services in accordance with the provisions of law.
3. Do not accept other requests of the defendant, Mr. Nguyen Cong T1.
From the time the judgment comes into legal effect, if the person entitled to enforcement has a request for enforcement but the person subject to enforcement has not yet enforced, he/she must pay interest on the amount to be enforced. The interest arising from late payment is determined according to the provisions of Article 357; Article 468 of the 2015 Civil Code.
The judgment is enforced according to the provisions of Article 2. Law on Enforcement of Judgments civil The person entitled to enforce the civil judgment and the person subject to enforcement of the civil judgment have the right to agree on enforcement, the right to request enforcement, voluntarily enforce the judgment or be forced to enforce the judgment according to the provisions of Articles 6, 7, 7a, 7b and 9 of the Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments; the statute of limitations for requesting enforcement of the judgment is implemented according to the provisions of Article 30 of the Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments.
4. Regarding court fees:
– First instance court fees: The parties do not have to pay first instance court fees.
– Appeal fees: Mr. Nguyen Cong T1 does not have to pay appeal fees.
The appellate judgment takes legal effect from the date of judgment.
