Plaintiff

The Government Employees Pension Service

April 17, 2019

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Guhap83362 decided August 9, 2018

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of non-approval of the public official pension division claim against the plaintiff on July 18, 2017 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the entry in this case are as follows: (a) the former Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15523, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter the same) shall be amended to the former Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15523, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (b) the term “former Public Officials Pension Act” in the part above shall be amended to the former Public Officials Pension Act; and (c) the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance shall be added to the following 2. Therefore, it shall be cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. The addition;

○ 4. The following shall be added at the end of the 13th page 4:

According to Article 12(1)1 of the Addenda to the Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 13387, Jun. 22, 2015), the Defendant’s assertion that a person who retired before the enforcement date of the Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 13387), who had already caused the cause for payment, cannot restrict the entitlement to retirement pension already generated due to the divided pension. However, the right to receive retirement pension already generated may be included in property division at the time of divorce like real estate (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Meu288, Jul. 16, 2014, etc.). As to the portion of the entitlement to retirement pension of a former public official, the entitlement to receive retirement pension, which was a public official, has a duty to directly acquire the entitlement to retirement pension to the Defendant, is merely a change in the content of the entitlement to retirement pension that has already occurred, and Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the above Act does not stipulate that the entitlement to retirement pension was a public official’s spouse.

○ 6. The following shall be added to the end of 10 pages 6:

Article 3(1)4(a) of the former Military Pension Act (amended by Act No. 12788, Oct. 15, 2014) explicitly provides that “A’s wife who was a soldier (hereinafter “A”) sought a survivor pension,” and Article 3(1)4(a) of the former Military Pension Act (amended by Act No. 12788, Oct. 15, 2014) explicitly provides that “A’s spouse shall be excluded from a married spouse who was 61 years of age after his/her retirement,” and his/her spouse is divorced from A at 69 years of age after his/her divorce with A, and it is obvious that the spouse does not constitute a survivor under the Military Pension Act, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-nam (Presiding Judge)

(1) Article 12 (Transitional Measures concerning the Payment of Benefits) (1) The payment of benefits for which grounds for the payment occurred before this Act enters into force shall be governed by the previous provisions, provided that Article 47 amended and Article 5 of the Addenda thereto shall also apply to those who have occurred before this Act enters into force.