A. Whether it is invalid since the State or a local government violated Article 50 of the Public Officials Pension Act, which did not take measures to transfer retirement benefits under Article 50 of the Public Officials Pension Act in transferring such specific duties to the Corporation, paid retirement benefits to the relevant public official, and recognized only the period of service of the Corporation as the basis for calculating the period of service (negative)

(b) Where the Seoul Metropolitan City subway Corporation stipulates that all rights and obligations falling under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be comprehensively transferred from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City in the Addenda to the Seoul Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment of subway Corporation, whether the matters concerning retirement benefits of public officials for whom transfer measures under Article 50 of the Public Officials Pension Act

A. In a case where the State or a local government paid retirement benefits at the time of retirement of a public official in accordance with mutually advantageous or policy decisions to pay retirement benefits without taking measures to transfer retirement benefits under Article 50 of the Public Officials Pension Act at the time of retirement of a public official, taking into account the financial basis of the Corporation, the circumstances of the Public Officials Pension Fund, and the interests of public officials who are executive officers and employees of the Corporation after retirement from the public official, etc., in the course of transferring the specific duties to the Corporation, if the public official received such benefits without any objection, the State or a local government recognized only the period of service in determining the period of service, which serves as the basis for calculating the retirement benefits under Article 70 of the Local Public Officials Pension Act, on the ground that the said measures to pay retirement benefits

B. Where the State or a local government establishes a construction to transfer a specific business, all rights and duties related to such business shall not be legally comprehensively transferred to the Corporation, and the scope of rights and duties succeeded by such policy decision may be determined. Although the Seoul Metropolitan Government subway Corporation shall comprehensively take over all rights and duties belonging to the Seoul Metropolitan Government subway Transport Service from among the special accounts for subway transport business in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in addition to the Seoul Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment of the subway Corporation, the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Installation of the subway Corporation stipulates that the affairs concerning retirement benefits of state public officials or local public officials shall be under the control of the Minister of Government Administration and the Government Public Officials Pension Management Corporation entrusted pursuant to Articles 2, 4, and 16 of the Public Officials Pension Act, and therefore, the rights and duties of the above Corporation comprehensively take comprehensive action shall be interpreted not to include matters

(a)Article 50 (a) of the Public Officials Pension Act; Article 70 (b) of the Local Public Officials Pension Act; Articles 2, 4, and 16 of the Public Officials Pension Act;

Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jong-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the subway Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na20790 delivered on February 2, 1990

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiffs were paid retirement benefits corresponding to the total period of service as state public officials and local public officials under Article 23 (2) of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 24 of the same Act after considering the following facts: since the plaintiffs were retired from office as employees of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, which are local public officials, and the subway Corporation was established and transferred to the defendant Corporation; since the Seoul Metropolitan Government's affairs under the jurisdiction of subway Corporation are transferred to the Seoul Metropolitan Government, public officials under the jurisdiction of the Seoul Metropolitan Government are appointed as employees of the Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 31, 1983; the facts that each retired from office as public officials of the Seoul Metropolitan Government on January 1, 1984; and the plaintiffs retired from office under the former part of Article 50 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, the period of service of the public officials under the jurisdiction of the Seoul Metropolitan Government on the same Act shall be calculated by adding up the period of service of the public officials under Article 23 (1) of the same Act to the former Public Officials Pension Act.

The purpose of legislation of Article 50 of the Public Officials Pension Act is to protect the public official pension fund by extending the time of retirement from the public official's office to the public official's office without paying retirement benefits, such as lump-sum retirement benefits or lump-sum retirement benefits, and by transferring the corresponding amount to the public official to the public official, and instead adding the duration of the public official's service to the public official's office. The State or a local government to the public official's office when transferring the specific affairs to the public official's office, and the public official's rights and duties are to retire from the public official's office in a lump sum and to the public official's office, and if the public official retires from the public official's office in a lump sum and becomes an officer or employee at the public official's office, it is likely that the public official's retirement benefits should be paid to the public official under Article 50 of the Public Officials Pension Act at the time of his retirement to the public official's office and the public official's interest to the public official's office.

According to the records, in this case where the plaintiffs retired from office in Seoul Special Metropolitan City and received a lump sum of retirement benefits from the Public Officials Pension Corporation without objection, and the fact that the retirement benefits transfer under Article 50 of the Public Officials Pension Act was not taken, unlike the above opinion of party members, the judgment of the court below which determined that the retirement benefits should be calculated by adding up the tenure of office of public officials under Article 50 of the Public Officials Pension Act is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles under Article 50 of the Public Officials Pension Act, and this constitutes grounds for reversal of the judgment

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

Justices Lee Chang-joon Kim Jong-won Kim Jong-won