1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 23, 2011, the Plaintiff was serving as a public official in the former central information planning department (the National Security Planning Department and the National Intelligence Service’s organizational name was changed) and retired from office as a public official.

B. On February 14, 2014, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and two years and six months.

(B) The Plaintiff and the Prosecutor appealed from the Busan District Court Branch Branch 2013 High Court Branch 2013 High Court 158). The appellate court reversed the judgment of the first instance and sentenced the Plaintiff to two years of imprisonment (Seoul High Court 2014No181). The Plaintiff and the Prosecutor appealed, but all of the appeals were dismissed (Supreme Court 2014Do12035).

C. On March 4, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on the ground that “a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment became final and conclusive due to a cause while on duty,” pursuant to Article 64 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15523, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter the same), the Defendant would recover KRW 52,769,660 from the retirement allowances and retirement pension already paid.”

On June 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee on the aforementioned restitution disposition, but was dismissed on July 22, 2015.

E. Meanwhile, on April 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment in installments (60 times) with respect to the amount to be recovered. From May 26, 2015 to May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff is under payment in 941,180 each month, and the Defendant pays 1/2 of the retirement pension to the Plaintiff from May 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 64(1)1 of the former Public Officials Pension Act stipulating that a retired public official who was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s assertion during his/her service should pay the retirement benefits and retirement allowances after reduction is contrary to the constitutional equality principle.

However, the defendant is based on Article 64 (1) 1 of the former Public Officials Pension Act.