[1] Whether a person who intends to receive benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act and the Public Officials Pension Act may immediately seek confirmation of the right or demand payment of benefits through a party suit against the Public Officials Pension Service in the absence of specific rights (negative), and whether such legal doctrine likewise applies to cases where seeking confirmation of the status that serves as a premise for a specific entitlement to benefits (affirmative)

[2] Whether an application for adding up the period of service under the Public Officials Pension Act is permitted only to a public official in office (affirmative)

[1] Where a person who intends to receive benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act and subordinate statutes files an application for the payment of benefits to the Public Officials Pension Service pursuant to the relevant statutes and the Public Officials Pension Service refuses or decides to grant benefits that recognize only some amount of money, he/she shall obtain specific rights by filing an appeal litigation against the decision, etc. In the absence of specific rights, it is not allowed to immediately file a lawsuit against the Public Officials Pension Service to seek confirmation of rights or to pay benefits

This legal principle is equally applied not only to cases of filing a lawsuit to seek confirmation of the right to receive specific benefits, but also to cases of seeking confirmation of the status which is a premise for the specific right to receive benefits.

[2] The legislative purport of the adding-up system under the Public Officials Pension Act, and the period of service, are the criteria for determining the types and amounts of the public official pension benefits, and it is required to be finalized until retirement, and the Public Officials Pension Act has limited the period of application for adding-up or allow the temporary adding-up of the period of service to the retired public officials. In light of such legislative history, the Public Officials Pension Act is deemed to have been amended several times on the premise that the application for adding-up of the period of service can be made only during the period of service. In full view of the legislative history, the Public Officials Pension Act shall

With respect to an administrative disposition which has become in dispute due to the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit, the right to request a change in individual laws and regulations or to request a change in administrative dispositions cannot be deemed to have the right to request a change in the interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations, barring any special circumstances, such as where the right to request a change in the relevant laws and regulations can be recognized. In light of the interpretation of the Public Officials Pension Act, it cannot be deemed that the right to request a correction of the period of service or the right to request a change in property, which is the premise of the decision on payment of benefits which has already occurred in dispute.

[1] Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 26 of the Public Officials Pension Act / [2] Article 24 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [General]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu18532 Decided September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3413), Supreme Court Decision 2008Du5636 Decided May 27, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1275) / [2] Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2015Hun-Ba18 Decided March 31, 2016 (Hun-Ba234, 583), Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1104 Decided April 26, 2007

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Bochi Law Firm et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Government Employees Pension Service

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu48711 decided September 30, 2014

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the claim for confirmation

A person who intends to receive benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act and subordinate statutes shall obtain a specific right by filing an appeal against a decision where a defendant refuses or partially recognizes the amount of benefits by requesting the payment of benefits to the defendant pursuant to the relevant statutes, and where the defendant decides to pay benefits, he/she shall obtain a specific right by filing an appeal against the decision, and it is not allowed to immediately seek confirmation of the right or payment of benefits through a party litigation against the defendant without specific rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu18532, Sept. 15, 1995; 2008Du5636, May 27, 2010).

This legal principle is equally applied not only to cases of filing a lawsuit to seek confirmation of the right to receive specific benefits, but also to cases of seeking confirmation of the status which is a premise for the specific right to receive benefits.

In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the part of the lawsuit in this case’s claim for confirmation is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal

2. As to the claim for revocation

A. As to the appeal by Plaintiffs 3 and 11

Although the above plaintiffs appealed to the judgment of the court below on the part of claim revocation, the above plaintiffs did not state any grounds of appeal as to this part of the petition of appeal and appellate brief submitted by the above plaintiffs

B. As to the remaining plaintiffs' appeals

In full view of the legislative purport of the Public Officials Pension Act, the period of service under the Public Officials Pension Act, the type and amount of the public officials pension benefits, which is the basis for the determination of the type and amount of the public officials pension benefits, and thus, it is necessary to be finalized until the retirement is made, and the Public Officials Pension Act has restricted the period of application for adding the period of service or allowed the temporary extension of the period of service to the retired public officials. In light of such legislative history, the Public Officials Pension Act is deemed to have been amended several times on the premise that the application for adding the period of service can be made only during the period of service (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 2015Hun-Ba18, March 31, 2016)

Even if the above plaintiffs' application for adding up the service period includes the purport of substantially seeking correction of the period of service, which is the premise of the decision on the re-determination of a legitimate service period or the payment of benefits that has already been made, the right to apply for the change of the administrative disposition cannot be deemed to have been granted to the people unless there are special circumstances, such as the right to apply for the change in the individual laws and regulations, or the right to apply for the change of the administrative disposition can be recognized under the interpretation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1104, Apr. 26, 2007). Thus, it cannot be deemed that the right to apply for correction of the period of service, which is the premise of the decision on the payment of benefits which has already become insufficient, or the right to request the correction of the period of service, which is the premise of the decision on the payment of benefits which has already occurred, and thus,

In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that a person eligible for filing an application for adding the tenure of office means a person who is qualified as a public official at the time of application. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by

Furthermore, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the instant disposition did not violate the principle of good faith or the principle of equality, etc., and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)