In a case where a beneficiary of a retirement pension under the Private School Teachers’ Pension Act is re-appointed as a teacher under the former Private School Teachers’ Pension Act, whether the payment of a retirement pension is naturally suspended during the period of service (affirmative), and whether the retirement pension paid to a beneficiary of a retirement pension during the period of payment suspension constitutes an erroneous payment of other benefits under Article 39 subparag. 3 of the former Private School Teachers’ Pension Act (affirmative)

Where a person who retired from office as a teacher of a private school and was receiving a retirement pension under the Private School Teachers' Pension Act is reappointed as a teacher of a school institution under Article 3 of the former Private School Teachers' Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6124 of Jan. 12, 200), and receives benefits from such institution during his/her term of office, Article 42(1) of the same Act and Article 47 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 5716 of Jan. 29, 199), and Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, regardless of whether the suspension of payment by the Korea Teachers' Pension Management Corporation under Article 51 of the same Act, the payment of retirement pension naturally is suspended from the time of occurrence of the cause, so the retirement pension paid to a recipient of a retirement pension during the period of suspension of payment constitutes "other erroneous payment" as provided in Article 39

Articles 3, 33, 39 subparag. 3, and 42(1) of the former Private School Teachers’ Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6124 of Jan. 12, 200), Article 47 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 5716 of Jan. 29, 199), Article 51 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Private School Teachers’ Pension Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16762 of Mar. 28, 200)

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

Plaintiff (Law Firm Barun Law Office, Attorneys Jeong Ho-ho et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Pension Management Corporation for Private School Teachers and Staff (formerly: the Pension Management Corporation for Private School Teachers and Staff, Attorneys Park Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na23750 delivered on October 13, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal (the grounds of appeal filed after the expiration of the period are to the extent of supplement in case of supplement)

In cases where a person who retired from office as a teacher of a private school and was receiving a retirement pension under the Private School Teachers' Pension Act is re-appointed as a teacher of a school institution as prescribed by Article 3 of the former Private School Teachers' Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6124 of Jan. 12, 200, hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), and receives benefits from such institution during his/her term of office, Article 42(1) of the Act, Article 47 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 5716 of Jan. 29, 199), and Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, regardless of whether the suspension of payment was imposed by the Korea Teachers' Pension Foundation, the payment of a retirement pension naturally is suspended from the time the cause occurred, and thus, the retirement pension paid to a recipient of a retirement pension during the suspension period constitutes a case where other benefits are erroneously paid.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, while the plaintiff employed as a private school teacher and retired on April 20, 198 and received a retirement pension from the defendant, on April 28, 1994, when the non-party school foundation, which is a private school organization under Article 3 of the Act, was appointed as a principal of the ○○○ University operated by the above school foundation, and the ground for the suspension of payment of retirement pension occurred, the defendant's continued payment of retirement pension to the plaintiff without knowing such circumstance constitutes "other benefits under Article 39 subparagraph 3 of the Act," and therefore, it is just to determine that the disposition of ordering the plaintiff to return the retirement pension received after the date on which the cause for the suspension of payment occurred, was lawful, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the recovery of retirement benefits and the suspension of payment of retirement pension. The plaintiff's ground for appeal cannot be accepted.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the person who received the benefits in a false or other unlawful manner refers to the case where the person who received the benefits received the benefits by affirmative means, recognizing that it was a subjective unlawful means, and neglecting his duty to report even though he knew that the cause for suspending payment of retirement pension occurred, it does not constitute the case where he neglected his duty to report. This decision of the court below is just in accordance with the records and relevant statutes, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 31 subparagraph 1 of the Act. The defendant's argument

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

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)