A person who falls under the bereaved family under Article 3 (1) 2 of the Public Officials Pension Act among the de facto spouse and the legal spouse;

In fact, in cases where a legal spouse, other than a spouse, exists, barring special circumstances such as the existence of legal divorce only formally and the de facto marital relationship is annulled and thus the legal divorce has existed, the legal spouse has the right to receive pension as a bereaved family, and in fact, the spouse cannot be protected as a bereaved family under the Public Officials Pension Act.

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Public Officials Pension Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Public Official Pension Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu16480 delivered on November 25, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the records, the fact-finding by the Committee is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, and omission of judgment which points out by the theory of the lawsuit.

The appeal on this point is ultimately dismissed, citing the fact-finding by the lower court, which is the exclusive authority.

2. Under Article 3(1)2 of the Public Officials Pension Act, "spouse in a de facto marital relationship" is also included in the scope of bereaved family members, and this purport is to protect the de facto spouse in a case where the substance of marriage is not recognized as a legally marital relationship because there is no report of marriage even though he/she has the substance of marital relationship. If there is a legal spouse other than the spouse, in fact, a spouse has the right to receive pension as a bereaved family member, and the spouse cannot be protected as a bereaved family member under the above Act, unless there are special circumstances such as where there is a legal divorce between the spouse and the spouse in a case where there is a legal spouse other than the spouse.

As determined by the court below in this case, the plaintiff was living together with the non-party 1 in 1957 and was actually living as the deceased's wife. However, the deceased was married with the non-party 2 on Nov. 1, 1949 and his report of marriage was completed on May 1, 1955, and the non-party 2 was living separately with the plaintiff. Thus, the non-party 2 did not have a marital relationship between the deceased and the non-party 2 on the grounds that the deceased refused divorce and the judgment against the non-party 2 was final and conclusive, and the non-party 2 did not have a de facto marital relationship between the deceased and the non-party 3 (the non-party 3 was born separately) by filing a lawsuit claiming that the deceased was born between the deceased and the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 on the ground that the plaintiff had no de facto marital relationship with the deceased on Aug. 2, 1982.

The judgment below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles pointing out the theory of lawsuit.

The essay is groundless.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)