[1] In a case where a recipient of a retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act is appointed as a teacher under the former Private School Teachers' Pension Act, whether the payment of a retirement pension is naturally suspended during the period of service (affirmative), and whether the retirement pension paid to a recipient of a retirement pension during the period of payment suspension of the retirement pension constitutes an erroneous payment of other benefits under Article 31 (1) 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a retirement pension recovery decision did not give the party an opportunity to state his/her opinion, whether it violates Article 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act or the good faith principle (negative)

[3] The meaning of "cases of receiving benefits by unlawful means" under Article 31 (1) 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act, and whether the duty to report is neglected despite being aware that a cause for suspending payment of retirement pension occurred (negative)

[1] Where a person who retired after being employed as a public official and was receiving a retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act is appointed as a teacher and staff member under Article 3 of the former Private School Teachers' Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6124 of Jan. 12, 200), and receives benefits from the relevant agency, the Act shall be applied without regard to the application for adding up the service period. The payment of a retirement pension shall be suspended naturally from the time when the relevant ground arises regardless of whether the suspension of payment is ordered under Article 47 of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 40 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act during the service period. Thus, the retirement pension paid to the recipient of a retirement pension during the payment suspension period constitutes "other cases where other benefits are overpaid or erroneously paid."

[2] Although a decision to recover a retirement pension imposes a duty on the parties, it is naturally determined in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations. Thus, even if the parties are not given an opportunity to state their opinions prior to the decision to recover the retirement pension, it does not violate Article 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act or the good faith

[3] "Cases where a person who received benefits by unlawful means" under Article 31 (1) 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act refers to cases where a person who received benefits is unable to receive benefits by active means while recognizing that he/she is a subjective unlawful means, and neglecting his/her duty to report even though he/she is aware that a ground for the suspension of payment of retirement pension has occurred.

[1] Article 3 subparag. 3, Article 31(1)3, and Article 47 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 40(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 3 of the former Private School Teachers’ Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6124, Jan. 12, 200) / [2] Article 3 subparag. 3, Article 31(1)3, and Article 47 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 26 and Article 40(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 3 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6124, Jan. 12, 200); Article 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act; Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 3 subparag. 3, Article 31(1)1, and Article 47 of the Public Officials Pension Act; Article 20(1)6(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du10414 delivered on November 10, 200 / [2] Constitutional Court en banc Decision 98HunBa106 delivered on June 29, 200 (HunGong47, 576)/ [3] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu7529 delivered on September 29, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3636)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Ilwon, Attorneys Recent-il et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Public Official Pension Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu14619 delivered on April 7, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s appeal

Where a person who was employed as a public official and was receiving a retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act is appointed as a teacher and staff member under Article 3 of the former Private School Teachers' Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6124 of Jan. 12, 200), and receives benefits from such institution, the Act shall be applied without regard to the application for aggregation of the period of service. The payment of a retirement pension shall be suspended naturally from the time of occurrence of the reason regardless of the suspension of payment of the Public Officials Pension Management Corporation under Article 47 of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 40(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, the retirement pension paid to the recipient of a retirement pension during the suspension of payment constitutes "other cases where other benefits are paid erroneously" under Article 31(1)3 of the Public Officials Pension

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below is just in holding that the disposition of this case ordering the plaintiff to return the retirement pension received after the date when the cause for suspension of payment occurred, on March 1, 1995, when the plaintiff was employed as a public official and retired from the defendant on March 20, 1990 and received the retirement pension from the defendant on March 1, 1995, which was appointed as the school principal of ○○ Private School under Article 3 of the above Private School Teachers' Pension Act and received benefits from the above school foundation, but the ground for suspension of payment of retirement pension occurred. However, the defendant's continued to pay the retirement pension to the plaintiff without knowing such circumstance constitutes "other benefits under Article 31 (1) 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act", and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal. Therefore, the ground for appeal on

Although a decision to recover a retirement pension is a disposition imposing obligations on the parties, it is naturally determined in accordance with relevant statutes. Thus, even if the parties are not given an opportunity to state their opinions prior to the decision to recover the retirement pension, it does not go against Article 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act or the good faith principle. Therefore, the grounds of appeal on this point

2. Judgment on the defendant's appeal

The court below held that the person who received the benefits in an unlawful manner under Article 31 (1) 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act refers to the case where the person who received the benefits received the benefits in an unlawful manner, and received the benefits which cannot be paid in an active manner with the awareness that the grounds for suspending payment of retirement pension have occurred, and that it does not constitute a failure to report even though he/she knew that the grounds for suspending payment of retirement pension have occurred, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

3. Therefore, all appeals shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne, and this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)