The interpretation of statutes ought to be carried out in a way that finds a concrete validity within the extent that does not undermine legal stability. For this purpose, the interpretation of statutes ought to be carried out in a way that serves as a matter of principle faithfully with the ordinary meaning of the language and text used in the statutes. Furthermore, a systematic and logical interpretation method that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose of the relevant statutes, the history of enactment and amendment, harmony with the entire legal order, relationship with other statutes, etc. should meet the request for the interpretation of statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7604, Oct. 11, 2012, etc.).

Article 46-3(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13387, Jun. 22, 2015; hereinafter “the amended Act”) which enters into force on January 1, 2016 provides that “If a person whose spouse has served as a public official for at least five years has divorced from his/her spouse during the period of marriage (Article 1); a person who has served as a retirement pension (Article 2(2)2); and a person who has served as a spouse (Article 60 years from 2016 to 2021) reaches the age of 65 (Article 2(2)1 of the Addenda to the amended Act, he/she may receive a certain amount of pension (hereinafter referred to as “divided pension”); and Article 46-3(2) of the same Act provides that “If a person who has served as a public official meets all the requirements, the amount of a divided pension shall be calculated separately by dividing the amount of his/her spouse’s pension to the amount of an equal marriage under Article 4363-4 of the Civil Act.”

The language and structure of the foregoing provision, and the purport of the legislative purport of the divided pension system established in the purport that a public official’s spouse who has contributed to the formation of a pension with respect to the right to receive a retirement pension or early retirement pension acquired during the marriage period during his/her tenure of office may be liquidated and distributed. On the other hand, the legislative purport of the other party’s entitlement to receive a retirement pension or early retirement pension is to guarantee a certain level of old-age income (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2016Hun-Ma54, Apr. 26, 2018). The amended Act was wholly amended by Act No. 15523, Mar. 20, 2018; and came into force from September 21, 2018. Notwithstanding Article 45(2) of the amended Act, Article 46 of the same Act, supra, should be deemed to have clearly defined the scope of the entitlement to a retirement pension under Article 839-2 or 843 of the amended Act as an exceptional provision on the division of a pension.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff is not entitled to receive the divided pension, as long as the payment age requirement (No. 3) among the requirements prescribed in Article 46-3(1) of the amended Act was not satisfied, even if the division ratio, etc. of the pension was determined through the decision of recommending settlement that became final and conclusive in the divorce and the lawsuit for

The above determination by the court below is just based on the above legal principles, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of Article 46-4 of the amended Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)