(영문) 서울행정법원 2009.12.10.선고 2009구합31090 판결

1. On February 3, 2009, the decision that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on February 3, 2009 not to approve the succession of the survivor pension shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

Paragraph 1 of this Article shall also apply.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Death of a beneficiary of a retirement pension;

○○○○ (the Deceased on April 19, 1938, hereinafter the Deceased) retired from office ○○ University on August 31, 2003 and was paid a retirement pension on January 16, 2009, when he/she died on August 31, 200.

B. The plaintiff's application for survivor pension

The ground for application: The plaintiff falls under the spouse of the deceased under Article 3 (1) 2 (a) of the Public Officials Pension Act.

C. The defendant's decision not to approve the succession to the survivor pension (the disposition of this case on February 3, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Ack: The plaintiff is a matrimonial relationship with the deceased, and it is difficult to recognize a de facto marital relationship with the deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is a spouse who is a beneficiary of the bereaved family year since the deceased was in a de facto marital relationship from around 1995 to the time of the deceased's death.

(b) Facts of recognition;

(1) The Deceased got married with the Plaintiff’s words ○○○, and died on January 13, 1992.

(2) Since the deceased was appointed to ○○ University, the deceased lived in ○○○ in the middle of the week, and at the end of the week, the deceased lived in ○○○ who has a family member and settled in ○○ from 1995.

(3) Since around 1993, the Plaintiff, who was unmarried, was in the deceased’s ○○ house, was able to live together at the Han House where the deceased and Mads were able to live together. From around 1995, the Plaintiff, as the deceased and Mads house, was able to live together with the deceased from that time.

(4) Since then, the deceased participated in school events or meetings and travels of various couple and couple groups, etc., and both ○○ and third parties were aware of the deceased as the denial of the deceased. From 1996 to 196, the Plaintiff was trying to actively join ○○○’s photographdong Association, and completed the move-in report on February 2, 2002 with the deceased’s ○○ House.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 2, 4, 5, 6, evidence 7-1, 2, 8-1, 3, 9-1 through 3, 10, 11, 12-1, 2, 13, Eul evidence 4 through 7, the witness's testimony to the head of Gwangju regional headquarters of the National Health Insurance Corporation, the fact-finding decision and the whole purport of the pleadings.

C. Determination

(1) Article 3(1)2(a) of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that “A person who is a bereaved family member entitled to a survivor pension and was in a de facto marital relationship at the time of his/her employment shall be limited to a person who is in a marital relationship, but shall include a person who is in a marital relationship.” However, it is proven that the parties have the substance of marital life, which is subjectively consistent with

In fact, it should be regarded as a person who is in a marital relationship.

(2) According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff continued to maintain the substance of a married life, which is recognized as a couple’s common life until the deceased died on January 16, 2009, since it started to establish a marital relationship with the deceased from around 1995, while living together with the deceased. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff is a spouse in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased at the time of the deceased’s employment.

(3) As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, pursuant to Article 815 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 7427, Mar. 31, 2005) which was in force at the time of the deceased’s employment, marriage was prohibited between the deceased and the Plaintiff, who was his wife, and that the marriage in violation of Article 815 subparagraph 2 was null and void. Thus, the divorce between the deceased and the Plaintiff is also null and void. Accordingly, the Plaintiff who was in a de facto marital relationship, which was null and void at the time of the deceased’s employment, does not constitute a survivor pension beneficiary under Article 3 (1) 2 (a) of the Public Officials Pension Act.

In light of the fact that the scope of bereaved family members eligible for a survivor pension is to contribute to the stabilization of the livelihood and the improvement of the welfare of public officials and their bereaved family members by providing appropriate benefits for the retirement or death of public officials, and the nature of the social security system of the survivor pension system, an associates who are beneficiaries of a survivor pension shall not be necessarily deemed to have the same meaning as that of a spouse under the Civil Act. However, in light of the public nature of the pension system, all of the spouse who are in a de facto marital relationship clearly contrary to the order of marriage under the Civil Act cannot be deemed to be a beneficiary of a survivor pension under the Public Officials Pension Act.

Therefore, with respect to a de facto marital relationship in which the Civil Act prohibits a marriage, the relevant de facto marital relationship surrounding the relevant de facto marital relationship, other than the cases of a de facto marital relationship such as the agreement between the parties’ objection to marriage and the substance of an objective marital community life, including the circumstances leading up to a de facto marital relationship, period of community life, support relationship, children’s relationship, stability and reliability of marital life, family-friendly relatives and friendships of the parties, has widely accepted the substance of their marital life.

In light of various circumstances, in exceptional cases where special circumstances are deemed more important to achieve the purpose of the Public Officials Pension Act which contributes to the stabilization of life and the improvement of welfare of bereaved family members, such as anti-ethical and anti-public interest, etc., the Public Officials Pension Act should be deemed as falling under a spouse in a de facto marital relationship prescribed as sufficient.

The Plaintiff returned to the instant case, health team, and the Plaintiff’s life in his unmarried family on January 13, 1992, when ○○○, who was in her mother, died on January 13, 1992, helps the Deceased and his family members to live in one house, such as the Deceased, and her family members. As the Deceased was settled in ○○ in 1995, the Plaintiff was a director at the same time before the time until the Deceased died on January 16, 2009, the Plaintiff was actually living as a couple for about 14 years from that time until the Deceased died. The life of the Deceased and the Plaintiff’s couple was accepted as a natural holiday for their children according to the South Korea’s welfare program, and the Plaintiff attended the school’s events at which the Deceased works or various meetings of the couple members, etc., and took advantage of the deceased’s public interest, such as the deceased’s denial of marriage, and the Plaintiff’s general purpose of the deceased’s public interest and the deceased’s retirement.

(4) The instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is not a spouse under Article 3(1)2(a) of the Public Officials Pension Act is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.