Where a person who has received a limited retirement pension under Article 64 (1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act applies for the aggregation of his/her service as a private school teacher and staff again, whether the retirement pension for the period of service of public officials should be paid (affirmative)

In light of the purport of Article 32(1) and the main sentence of Article 32(2) and Article 52-2 of the former Pension for Private School Teachers and Staff Act (amended by Act No. 11767, May 22, 2013; hereinafter “former Private School Pension Act”), and the purport of the former Private School Pension Act stipulating that a former public official shall transfer the amount equivalent to retirement pension, etc. even though he/she recognizes the period of service to the Public Official Pension Service, if a former public official applies for adding up the period of service after his/her retirement to the public official, he/she shall also receive a retirement pension under the former Private School Pension Act; however, the portion of retirement pension for the period of service of a public official shall be still borne by the Service notwithstanding the aggregate method of the public official pension and the private school personnel pension. Accordingly, even if a person who has received a retirement pension restricted pursuant to Article 64(1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 7543, May 31, 2005), an application for retirement pension shall still be made.

Article 32(1) and (2), and Article 52-2 of the former Pension for Private School Teachers and Staff Act (Amended by Act No. 11767, May 22, 2013); Article 64(1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act (Amended by Act No. 7543, May 31, 2005)

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

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 (Attorney Gyeong-dae, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Private School Staff Pension Corporation (Government Law Firm, Attorneys Choi Choi-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Na102638 Decided November 20, 2014

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the former Pension for Private School Teachers and Staff Act (amended by Act No. 11767, May 22, 2013; hereinafter “former Pension Act”), where a retired public official is appointed as a teacher and staff and applies for the aggregation of his/her tenure of office, the period of service under the Public Officials Pension Act may be added to the tenure of office (Article 32(1)); where a person who intends to add his/her tenure of office is recognized from the defendant, the amount of retirement benefits received at the time of his/her retirement (where he/she is subject to restrictions on his/her benefits under Article 64 of the Public Officials Pension Act, the benefits to be received at the time of his/her retirement shall be returned to the defendant (the main sentence of Article 32(2) of the Public Officials Pension Act), but where a retired public official retires from office instead of returning his/her pension benefits, the GEPS shall transfer to the defendant the amount equivalent to retirement pension, etc. that the retired public official may receive under the Public Officials Pension Act (Article 52-2(2).

In light of the provisions and structure of the former Private School Pension Act, and the purport of the former Private School Pension Act stipulating that the Public Official Pension Service shall transfer the amount equivalent to retirement pension, etc. while recognizing the adding up of the tenure of office, where a person who was a public official files an application for adding up the tenure of office after his/her retirement as a teacher and staff again, he/she shall receive a retirement pension under the former Private School Pension Act even for the tenure of office; however, the retirement pension for the tenure of office of the public official shall be under the premise that he/she still bears the limited amount of benefits under the Public Official Pension Act (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du7588 delivered on April 24, 201). Therefore, even if a person who received a retirement pension restricted pursuant to Article 64(1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 7543, May 31, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply), even if he/she applied for adding up the tenure of office as a teacher and staff, it is reasonable to view that the portion of the retirement pension for the public official service should be paid (

2. The lower court acknowledged that the Plaintiff was appointed as a public official on December 22, 1980 and dismissed on December 9, 2001, and that the Plaintiff was employed as a private school staff on August 1, 2006 while receiving a retirement pension reduced to 1/2 from the Public Officials Pension Management Corporation pursuant to Article 64(1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act; the Plaintiff applied for adding the period of service to the Defendant on March 1, 2007; the Plaintiff applied for retirement on September 2, 201; and on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that a limited retirement pension should be paid for the period of service of the public official, even if the period of service was aggregated.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 32 of the Pension for Private School Teachers

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)