[1] The meaning of "retirement" in relation to a disaster that occurred during the dispatch or withdrawal of a public official due to an accident on official duty under the Public Officials Pension Act

[2] The case holding that, in case where a police officer's driving of a car while driving the car and parked the car on the math of the car, and then coming off from the car to the building of the math of the mast, and the fife is faced with a fife with the snow on the ground floor, the police officer's driving of the car into the private area, which is a private area controlled and managed individually on the math of the house, and the act of leaving the car, shall be deemed to be terminated, and thus, the accident thereafter does not constitute an accident on official duty, since it is an accident after the retirement

[1] Article 35 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Pension Act / [2] Article 35 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the

Plaintiff

The Public Official Pension Service (former Name: the Public Official Pension Service)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu18730 decided January 19, 2010

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In order for a public official to perform his/her duties, a disaster that occurred while entering and leaving the place of his/her residence and work in the way and manner is a disaster that occurred in connection with the performance of official duties and constitutes an accident on official duties under the Public Officials Pension Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da16161, Oct. 8, 1993). Here, the term "retire" refers to a disaster that occurs in the area of private residence controlled and managed by an individual after completing work and returning to the area of his/her residence. Thus, if a public official's residence is a detached house with a paralysis, it shall be deemed that the retirement of the public official simultaneously with the island by entering the site of his/her house, such as marina, etc., and it shall not be deemed that the retirement of the public official ends.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, upon citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff, a police officer, was on duty at around 18:0 on July 26, 2007 and parked a car into a marina house, which is his residence, after driving a car at around 18:50; and (b) was faced with the accident of this case, flicking the snow on the ground floor while getting out from the car, going up to the string of the building at her own dwelling; and (c) in light of the circumstances as stated in its holding, the court below determined that even in the case of a marina apartment house, the act of leaving the door of the building in the real dwelling place is terminated by the moment when private act unrelated to the act of leaving the building before entering the door of the building, the act of leaving the building should be deemed to be terminated between the act and the act of leaving the building, and the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be deemed to fall under the accident.

However, according to the legal principles as seen earlier, if the plaintiff started to come into the math of the above detached Housing, it can be deemed that the plaintiff's act of leaving the office was terminated, and therefore, the plaintiff's act of leaving the office cannot be deemed to be an accident after leaving the office, and therefore, the accident of this case which occurred thereafter cannot be deemed to constitute an accident on official duty. However, the court below determined that the accident of this case constitutes an accident on official duty on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to accidents on official duty. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)