1. Article 32(1) of the Pension for Private School Teachers and Staff Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Pension for Private School Teachers and Staff Act”) provides that when a person who has been recognized to add up the former tenure of office in the calculation of the benefits under the Private School Pension Act files an application for adding up the tenure of office within two years after he/she is appointed as a teacher and staff member of a private school or a soldier and staff member of a private school, the former tenure of office or the service period may be added up to the tenure of office in the calculation of the benefits under the Private School Pension Act, and Article 42(4) provides that where a person who has been recognized to add up the tenure of office files an application for full or partial exclusion from adding up the recognized tenure of office, he/she may be excluded from adding up the tenure of office, and Article 64(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public School Pension Act provides that where a teacher and staff member of a private school was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment for the reason of his/her currently in office, his/her retirement benefits and retirement allowances shall be reduced by half.

In full view of the contents and structure of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as well as the purport of the benefits system for retired private school teachers and staff, where retired private school teachers and staff have been appointed again as the same teacher and staff, and the previous tenure of office is added up after applying for an addition of their former tenure of office, such teacher and staff shall be deemed to have served continuously during the period of their service before and after reappointment unless there is a legitimate application for exclusion from aggregation. Therefore, the retirement benefits and retirement allowances to be paid after reappointment are related only to the entire tenure of office before and after reappointment, and cannot be deemed to have been divided into the part concerning the tenure of office before and after reappointment and the part concerning the tenure of office after reappointment. Therefore, where retired private school teachers and staff are sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for reasons of the total tenure

2. The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision, such as the fact that the plaintiff, who had previously been a private school staff member, applied for a new appointment as the principal of the ○○ High School and retired from office, and then, the plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years in the year and June due to the crime of embezzlement committed by the plaintiff while serving as the principal of the ○○○ High School. The defendant decided to reduce the retirement pension from August 2, 2005, which is the following month after the above punishment became final and conclusive, to half the retirement pension from December 2, 2005, and the recovery of the amount equivalent to the reduced portion of the retirement pension and retirement pension already paid from the plaintiff. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the payment of retirement benefits for the entire period of service can be restricted even if the ground for restriction on benefits occurred due to the reason that occurred during the period of his reappointment after his reappointment. The judgment of the court below is just in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles and incomplete hearing, etc.

In addition, if it is deemed that the payment of retirement benefits to the entire tenure of office may be restricted, if retirement is retired without making an application for exclusion after making an application for exclusion, it may result in an economic disadvantage compared with a case where an application for exclusion was filed before retirement after making an application for exclusion or making an application for exclusion. However, in light of the different legal status in relation to retirement benefits, it cannot be deemed as contrary to the principle of equity.

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

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)