1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,766,757 and its related KRW 5% per annum from January 1, 2017 to June 22, 2018 and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 11, 1995, the Plaintiff was appointed as the police assigned for special guard who is a state public official of the District Court under the jurisdiction of the Defendant, and was retired on December 31, 2016.

B. On June 15, 2001, when the plaintiff was in office as the police assigned for special guard, the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and 2 years of suspended execution, which became final and conclusive on June 23, 2001.

C. The Plaintiff filed a claim for retirement benefits with the Public Officials Pension Corporation on December 20, 2016. However, on January 3, 2017, the Public Officials Pension Corporation retired ipso facto from office pursuant to the above final judgment on June 23, 2001, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim retirement benefits only until June 22, 2001, which is the day immediately preceding the date ipso facto retirement. However, on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not claim retirement benefits for five years from the date ipso facto retirement, the right to claim retirement benefits has expired by prescription. However, from July 7, 2001 following the date ipso facto retirement to December 201, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of only KRW 52,838,100 (i.e., the principal and interest amount contributed to 36,744,190 - interest 16,093,910 - 16,31047,79.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5

2. Determination:

A. The occurrence and scope of the duty of return of unjust enrichment and the provision of employment from the appointment to the retirement of a public official are practically offered without any legal cause by the State, while the public official, whose appointment is null and void, actually suffered profits by having been provided with labor, whereas the public official, whose appointment is null and void, actually suffered losses from the provision of labor, and thus, the State is obligated to return the said gains within the scope of damages,

In other words, the government has paid retirement benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act in relation to the actual labor provided by public officials whose appointment could have been applied to the Public Officials Pension Act.