Whether the filing of a lawsuit seeking nullification of a removal constitutes grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription against the public official's right to claim retirement benefits (negative)

A lawsuit seeking nullification of a removal disposition is inconsistent with the extinguishment of status of a public official who is the premise of the claim for retirement benefits, and thus, cannot be a premise for exercising the claim for retirement benefits or a means of realizing such status. Therefore, the removal disposition received. Even if a person files a lawsuit seeking nullification of the removal disposition, this does not constitute a ground for interruption of the extinctive prescription period against the claim for retirement benefits.

Article 81 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 96 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Public Official Pension Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu1013 delivered on February 7, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

A lawsuit seeking nullification of a removal disposition is inconsistent with the extinguishment of status of a public official who is the premise of the claim for retirement benefits, and thus, cannot be a premise for exercising the claim for retirement benefits or a means of realizing such status. Therefore, the removal disposition received. Even if a person files a lawsuit seeking nullification of the removal disposition, this does not constitute a ground for interruption of the extinctive prescription period against the claim for retirement benefits.

In this regard, the court below did not claim retirement benefits even though the plaintiff was dismissed on November 15, 1983 while serving as a public official, and did not claim retirement benefits after May 22, 1989. As to the case of this case, even though the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking nullification of the removal disposition on March 25, 1987, it is just to determine that the extinctive prescription has already expired at the time of the above claim, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for interruption of the extinctive prescription period, as in the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for interruption of the extinctive prescription period as to the party members' case cited in the theory of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da2509 delivered on April 11, 1978) relating to the claim for remuneration until the nullification of the removal disposition becomes final and conclusive. Accordingly

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)