Whether a spouse who was a public official of the deceased at the time of his retirement and was supported by the deceased at the time of his death constitutes “spouse” under Article 3(1)2(a) of the Public Officials Pension Act (affirmative)

Inasmuch as the “spouse, one of the bereaved family members stipulated in Article 3(1)2(a) of the Public Officials Pension Act,” it cannot be deemed that only the surviving spouse continues without separation of marriage between the time of the death of a public official or a former public official from the retirement to the time of the death. As such, the spouse of the deceased at the time of the death of the deceased and the spouse supported by the said deceased at the time of the death of the said deceased constituted “spouse” under Article 3(1)2(a) of the Public Officials Pension Act.

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

Park Young-nam (Attorney Seo-nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Public Official Pension Corporation

1. The defendant's rejection on October 7, 2002 against the plaintiff of the application for succession to the survivor pension that was made against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

[A evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 3-2, 3-4, 1, 9-1, 9-2, 10-1, 10-2, 11-1, 11-2, 11-2, 12, 13-1, 13-1, 15-2, 15-1, 15-2, 16, 10, 10-1, 10-2, 10-2, 10-2, 10-2, 11-2, 113-2, 13-1, and 13-12, 13-14, 15-1, 15-2, 16, 10-1, 10, 10-1, 10, 10-2, 10-2, and 10-

A. On May 20, 1954, the Plaintiff and the deceased were married between the couple who completed the marriage report and the non-party deceased status. As the Plaintiff’s debt owed to the insurance solicitor amounting to KRW 300 million, the obligees gave a heavy demand for reimbursement, and as a result, the Plaintiff and the deceased were married on April 22, 1998 with a view to preventing the damages to the above deceased and the deceased from being incurred.

B. After the combination with the above deceased, the plaintiff transferred his resident registration to Busan Shipping Daegu 1405-31 1302, 1405, 1302, which is the creditor's house living together with the above deceased. However, in fact, while living together with the above deceased, the plaintiff maintained the substance of the deceased and the above couple, and as the plaintiff's debt was adjusted to some extent, the plaintiff filed a marriage report again on April 24, 199.

(c) On February 1, 1960, the deceased was appointed as a teacher and was on August 31, 1994, and died on September 5, 2002 while supporting the plaintiff as a retirement pension received from the defendant after his retirement on August 31, 1994.

D. The plaintiff filed an application for succession to the survivor pension with the defendant on October 7, 2002, but the defendant rejected the application for succession to the survivor pension on the ground that the existing marital relationship was retroactively resolved due to the divorce on April 22, 1998 between the plaintiff and the deceased on April 22, 1998, and thus, the plaintiff does not constitute "spouse in a marital relationship at the time of the re-employment with the right to receive the survivor pension."

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case, which he reported differently, constitutes "spouse" under Article 3 (1) 2 (a) of the Public Officials Pension Act, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry is as follows.

(c) Markets:

On the other hand, the couple's existing marital relationship does not lose its effect retroactively due to the divorce between the couple and the couple's agreement. The "spouse, one of the bereaved family members, as defined in Article 3 (1) 2 (a) of the Public Officials Pension Act, does not mean only the spouse who has been a public official or a former public official, without the separation of marital relationship between the time of death and the time of death. Thus, according to the above facts, the plaintiff is the spouse of the above deceased at the time of the above deceased's retirement and the spouse who was supported by the above deceased at the time of the above deceased's death and was supported by the above deceased at the time of the above deceased's death.

Even if "spouse", one of the bereaved family members under Article 3 (1) 2 (a) of the Family Public Officials Pension Act, means only a spouse who has been a public official or a former public official, without the separation of marital relationship between the time of death, the marital relationship that should continue from the retirement to the time of death, regardless of the legal and de facto marital relationship. According to the above, the plaintiff and the deceased have maintained a de facto marital relationship until their marriage on April 24, 1999, after the agreement was reached on April 22, 1998. Thus, the plaintiff should be viewed as a "spouse" under Article 3 (1) 2 (a) of the Public Officials Pension Act, and the plaintiff should be viewed as a "spouse" under Article 3 (1) 2 (a) of the same Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful, so it is decided as per Disposition by accepting the plaintiff's claim.

Judge Clerks (Presiding Judge)