See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Attorney Yellow-dok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Public Official Pension Corporation (Attorney Go Chang-deok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 19, 2010

1. Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2002Guhap38252 decided Jul. 5, 2007 / 2. Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2002Guhap38252-1 decided Apr. 17, 2008

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu21442, 208Nu11626 (Joint Judgment) Decided November 19, 2008

Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3125, 2009Du3132 Decided July 22, 2010

1. Of the judgments of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs other than the plaintiffs 110 corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 110 an amount calculated by applying the corresponding amount of the cited amount of the attached sheet to each of the plaintiffs, as well as 5% per annum from October 28, 2005 to December 17, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff 483's claim extended from the trial after remand is dismissed.

4. All of the appeals by plaintiffs 110 and the remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

5. The costs of the lawsuit after the plaintiff 110's appeal shall be borne by the above plaintiff, and the remaining plaintiffs and the defendant shall bear five minutes of the total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the remaining costs shall be borne by the above plaintiffs and the defendant

6. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs an amount calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum from September 26, 2003 to the date of complete payment (the plaintiff 483 in the judgment of the Supreme Court was extended from September 26, 2003 to the date of complete payment) the corresponding amount in the claim column after remanding the separate statement to the plaintiffs (the plaintiff 483 (the plaintiff 483 in the judgment of the court below). The plaintiff 483 (the plaintiff 483 in the

1. Basic facts and the process of the instant lawsuit

A. The Constitutional Court decided that Article 47 subparagraphs 2 and 5 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6328 of Dec. 30, 2000) shall be in violation of the Constitution, and that Article 204Hun-Ga20 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6328 of Oct. 27, 2005) shall be in violation of the Constitution, and Article 47 subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 5117 of Dec. 29, 195) shall be in violation of the Constitution.

Article 47 subparagraphs 2 through 5 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (hereinafter “Public Officials Pension Act before 200”) which was determined as unconstitutional by the first decision of unconstitutionality refers to the Act before it was amended by Act No. 6328 of Dec. 30, 200, and Article 47 subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (hereinafter “Public Officials Pension Act before 200”) which was decided as unconstitutional by the second decision of unconstitutionality refers to the Act before it was amended by Act No. 6328 of Dec. 30, 200, respectively, and Article 47 subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (hereinafter “Public Officials Pension Act before 95”) which was decided as unconstitutional by the second decision of unconstitutionality is amended by Act No. 5328 of Jan. 1, 198 through July 29, 198.

B. The plaintiffs (in the case of the plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit as the heir of the pension beneficiary since the filing of a lawsuit or filed a lawsuit while the lawsuit was pending, referring only to the deceased person who is the beneficiary of a pension) who retired before December 31, 200 and obtained the right to receive a retirement pension before December 31, 200, and were re-employed during the suspension period of pension payment under Article 47 subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act or subparagraphs 2 through 5 of Article 47 of the Public Officials Pension Act before the amendment in 200, which was the time when the first decision of unconstitutionality was made from the time of re-employment until September 203, 203.

C. At the time of filing the initial lawsuit on September 5, 2002, the Plaintiffs, including the Plaintiffs, sought the payment of the remainder after deducting the pension amount calculated under the Public Officials Pension Act after the amendment from the pension amount calculated under the Public Officials Pension Act from January 1, 2001 on the ground that Article 43-2 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6328, Dec. 30, 200) and Article 9 of the Addenda was unconstitutional, and subsequently, sought the payment of the remainder after deducting the pension amount calculated under the Public Officials Pension Act from the pension amount calculated under the Public Officials Pension Act before the amendment, and first, the amount claimed by each Plaintiff was set as 50,000

D. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit are those who worked in the institutions subject to suspension of payment under Article 47 subparagraphs 2 through 5 of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6328 of Dec. 30, 200). The defendant submitted to the plaintiffs a written claim for suspension of payment under Article 47 subparagraphs 2 through 5 of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 47 subparagraphs 2 through 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Pension Act for the following reasons: (a) there was a defect in the first unconstitutionality of the same day; and (b) on January 31, 2004, the plaintiff filed a claim for suspension of payment under Article 47 subparagraphs 2 through 5 of the Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6328 of Dec. 30, 200); (c) there was no obligation to pay the plaintiff the total amount of money equivalent to 50% of the pension to the plaintiffs under Article 47 subparagraphs 2 through 17 through 5 of the Public Officials Pension Act.

E. On the grounds that Article 47 subparag. 2 and subparag. 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act was unconstitutional before the amendment on July 10, 2004, six of the plaintiffs, including 30 co-Plaintiffs in the first instance trial, filed an application for adjudication on the constitutionality of statutes.

F. At the time of October 6, 2004, the plaintiffs again filed a lawsuit against the plaintiffs, "part of the plaintiffs from September 1997 to September 2003 work for the institution subject to suspension of payment of pension" under Article 47 subparagraph 2 to 5 of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Officials Pension Act. The defendant did not pay to the plaintiffs 50% of the pension which should be paid based on Article 47 subparagraph 2 to 5 of the Public Officials Pension Act. The claim portion of the retirement pension based on Article 43-2 of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 9 of the Addenda of the Public Officials Pension Act were withdrawn, and the defendant's payment of the unpaid amount was unconstitutional since it was based on Article 47 subparagraph 2 to 5 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 9 of the former Public Officials Pension Act and Article 9 of the former Public Officials Pension Act from January 1, 200 to September 1, 2000.

G. From March 8, 2007, 180 of the plaintiffs, including the plaintiffs, filed an application for revision of the purport of the claim for the retirement pension suspended pursuant to Article 47 subparagraphs 2 through 5 of the Public Officials Pension Act or Article 47 subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act before the amendment in 2000, and the remaining plaintiffs' lawsuits were withdrawn.

H. In the first instance court prior to the amendment of 95, only 6 members of the first instance court, including 30 co-Plaintiffs, who were the parties who filed an application for a ruling of unconstitutionality regarding Article 47 subparag. 2 and subparag. 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act before the amendment of 95, won part of the lawsuit brought by the court of first instance on the grounds that the second unconstitutional decision of unconstitutionality would affect the validity of the second unconstitutional decision of unconstitutionality. The lawsuit brought by co-Plaintiffs 766 and 1047 of the first instance court was dismissed, and the remaining plaintiffs, including the plaintiffs, cannot be deemed to have continued the lawsuit at the time of the decision of unconstitutionality. Thus, the lawsuit brought after the decision of unconstitutionality was rejected,

I. In the first instance court, the Plaintiffs, who partly or entirely lost, appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, and partly appealed the claim (part of the appeal was withdrawn from the lawsuit or appeal in the process of the trial before the remand), but all of the appeals were dismissed in the first instance court before the remand.

(j) Accordingly, the plaintiffs, including the plaintiffs, filed a second appeal. The Supreme Court reversed each part of the part against the plaintiffs, and remanded that part of the second unconstitutional decision to the court of the trial, on the ground that the above provision of the law became the premise of the trial before the second unconstitutional decision was made, and the second unconstitutional decision was made, and all of the remaining appeals by the plaintiffs and remaining appeals by the plaintiffs were dismissed.

C. After the remand, the remaining plaintiffs, except the plaintiff 483, sought the retirement pension portion from September 9, 197 to July 1999 as stated in the purport of the claim and damages for delay thereof, and the plaintiff 483 reduced the purport of the claim. The plaintiff 483 claimed the retirement pension portion from September 1997 to July 199, and sought the amount of KRW 9,437,310 as the retirement pension portion from July 199, and expanded the purport of the claim by increasing the corresponding amount to KRW 9,498,150 (the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim of this part).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 1797, Gap evidence 4-1 to 4-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion

Although the Defendant’s act of payment suspension of retirement pension against the Plaintiffs constitutes an administrative disposition, it should be based on an appeal litigation seeking revocation of the disposition of payment suspension of retirement pension, the instant lawsuit seeking payment of retirement pension under public law is unlawful.

B. Determination

In a case where the payment of part of the retirement pension is suspended due to the amendment of the Act and subordinate statutes while a retirement pension was paid upon recognition by the defendant, it is naturally finalized under the amended Act and subordinate statutes, and the amount is not finalized by the defendant's decision and notification of the retirement pension. Thus, even if the defendant expressed his/her intent to refuse payment of part of the retirement pension, such expression of intent is not an administrative disposition that forms and determines the right to claim payment of the retirement pension, but merely an actual and legal opinion as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay as a party to a legal relationship under public law. Thus, it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition. Such right to claim payment of the unpaid retirement pension as a right under public law, which is a legal relationship under public law, constitutes a party litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du15195, Dec. 24, 2004, etc.). Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Article 47 subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 47 subparagraph 2 and 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act), which was based on which one half of the retirement pension was suspended from September 197 to July 1999 against the plaintiffs, shall be decided as unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. Thus, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount stated in the "amount of claim for the trial after refund" column of the attached Form, which was suspended due to the retroactive effect of each decision of unconstitutionality of this case.

(b) Related statutes;

Gu Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3586, Dec. 28, 1982)

Article 47 (Suspension of Payment of Retirement Pension) When any person entitled to receive a retirement pension receives any remuneration or other benefits from an institution falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the payment of the retirement pension may be suspended in whole or in part during the period of payment, as prescribed by Presidential Decree:

1. The State or local government agencies;

2. An institution determined by Ordinance of the Prime Minister, in which the State or a local government has invested at least half of its capital and the Bank of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "government-invested institution") and the State, a local government, or a government-invested institution have invested at least half of its capital;

3. Institutions prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister, which are financial support directly or indirectly by the State or a local government, such as contributions and subsidies;

Gu Public Officials Pension Act (Amended by Act No. 5117, Dec. 29, 1995)

Article 47 (Suspension of Payment of Retirement Pension or Early Retirement Pension) When any recipient of a retirement pension or early retirement pension is paid remunerations and other benefits by an institution falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the payment of all or part of the retirement pension or early retirement pension may be suspended during the period of payment, as prescribed by Presidential Decree:

1. An institution of the State or a local government or a school institution under Article 3 of the Private School Teachers’ Pension Act;

2. Institutions determined by Ordinance of the Prime Minister, all or part of capital invested by the State or a local government, the Bank of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "government-invested institution"), or government-invested institutions;

3. An institution determined by Ordinance of the Prime Minister, which directly or indirectly provides contributions, subsidies, etc. by the State or local governments;

4. Institutions established by the reversion, grant or free lending of State or public property, or institutions established by the contribution of the State or local governments as prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister;

5. The President, the head of a central administrative agency, the head of a local government, or an agency, the authority of which is delegated under Acts and subordinate statutes, who appoints an executive or approves the appointment thereof;

The Addenda

Article 1 (Enforcement Date) This Act shall enter into force on January 1, 1996: Provided, That the amended provisions of Article 47 shall enter into force on January 1, 200.

Gu Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 5716, Jan. 29, 199)

Article 47 (Suspension of Payment of Retirement Pension or Early Retirement Pension) When any recipient of a retirement pension or early retirement pension receives remunerations and other benefits from an institution falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the payment of all or part of the retirement pension or early retirement pension during the period of payment thereof, as prescribed by Presidential Decree:

1. An institution of the State or a local government or a school institution under Article 3 of the Private School Teachers’ Pension Act;

2. Institutions determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, all or part of capital invested by the State or a local government, the Bank of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "government-invested institution") and government-invested institutions;

3. Institutions prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs which the State or local governments provide financial support, such as contributions and subsidies, directly or indirectly;

4. Institutions prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, which are established by the reversion, grant or free lending of State or public property, or institutions established by the contribution of the State or local governments;

5. Institutions which are determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs as institutions where the President, the heads of central administrative agencies, the heads of local governments, or the persons entrusted with their authority appoint officers;

The Addenda

(1) This Act shall enter into force on the date six months have elapsed after its promulgation.

Gu Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6328, Dec. 30, 200)

Article 47 (Suspension of Payment of Retirement Pension or Early Retirement Pension)

(1) When a beneficiary of a retirement pension or early retirement pension is appointed as a public official, military person, or private school teacher and staff member subject to this Act, the payment of the relevant pension in whole during the period of his/her service shall be suspended.

(2) Where any recipient of a retirement pension or early retirement pension has business income (excluding business income prescribed by Presidential Decree) under the provisions of Article 19 of the Income Tax Act and employment income under the provisions of Article 20, other than pensions, the payment may be suspended within the limit of 1/2 of the retirement pension or early retirement pension. In such cases, necessary matters concerning the scope of income and the amount of suspension of payment

ADD.

Article 1 (Enforcement Date) This Act shall enter into force on January 1, 2001: Provided, That the amended provisions of Articles 26(1), 38, 63, 69(8) and 69-3 shall enter into force on January 1, 2002, and the amended provisions of Article 47 shall enter into force on the date prescribed by Presidential Decree within the limit of five years.

C. Determination

1) Although the statement of the purport of the claim itself is not clear whether the party is the subject matter of a lawsuit, if the party asserts that the subject matter of a lawsuit is the cause of the claim, the court must clarify whether the purport of the claim is identical to the fact that the cause of the claim is the cause of the claim. If the purport of the claim is modified and clearly stated that the cause of the claim is the cause of the claim, it cannot be viewed as a new claim (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Nu106, Sept. 28, 1982; 88Nu10251, Aug. 8, 1989, etc.).

According to the above facts, the plaintiffs added not only Article 47 subparagraphs 2 through 5 of the Public Officials Pension Act before the amendment in 2004 and October 6, 2004, which was before the second decision of unconstitutionality, but also Article 47 subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act before the amendment in 2000, on the ground that Article 47 subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the Public Officials Pension Act was unconstitutional, which were suspended in payment pursuant to each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes before the amendment in 95, to the whole retirement pension from September 1997 to September 2003, which was suspended pursuant to each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs revised the purport of the claim as to the above additional claim as they were true while submitting an application for amendment of the purport of claim after March 207, and therefore, the part of the above additional claim for the above period had continued to be made to the court when each of the above legal brief was delivered to the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay each of the corresponding retirement pension and its delay damages from September 1997 to July 1999, which suspended payment to the plaintiffs.

2) Furthermore, we examine the amount of retirement pension to be paid to the plaintiffs.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in Article 10 and 11 of the Evidence, there is no evidence to prove that the amount of the retirement pension that the Defendant has to pay to the remaining plaintiffs except Plaintiff 110 (Plaintiff 110 in the judgment of the Supreme Court) is the same as the corresponding amount of each stated in the column for the suspension of payment from September 1997 to July 1999, and that there is a retirement pension that the Defendant has to pay to the above plaintiffs in excess of the aforementioned amount of the retirement pension or there is a retirement pension that the Defendant has to pay to Plaintiff 110.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount of retirement pension suspended from payment from September 1997 to July 199, 35 (Plaintiff 35), 209 (Plaintiff 209 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), 294 (Plaintiff 294 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), 298 (Plaintiff 298 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), 324 (Plaintiff 324 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), 416 (Plaintiff 416 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), and the remainder of the Plaintiffs, other than Plaintiff 110, to the extent that the amount of the retirement pension suspended from payment, Plaintiff 35 (Plaintiff 35 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), and Plaintiff 294 (Plaintiff 294 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), Plaintiff 298 (Plaintiff 298 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), Plaintiff 324 (Plaintiff 298 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), and Defendant’s annual amount of delay from 10th to 2416th of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the remaining plaintiffs' claims except the plaintiff 110 shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and all of the plaintiffs' claims and remaining plaintiffs' claims (including claims extended in the trial of the plaintiff 483) shall be dismissed without merit. Since the part against the plaintiffs other than the plaintiff 110 in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, the part which different from this conclusion is unfair, it shall be revoked and the payment order shall be issued as above. The remaining appeals of the plaintiff 110 and the remaining appeals of the plaintiff 110 and the claims expanded in the trial after the plaintiff 483's remand shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Attachment List of Plaintiffs】

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)