In cases where a public official falling under Article 23 (2) of the former Public Officials Pension Act, who is currently in office as of the enforcement date of the same Act, fails to know that there is a restriction on the deadline for application for adding up the period of service due to the failure to receive an application for adding up the period of service from the Public Officials Pension Corporation or its affiliated agency, whether an application for adding up

Even if the enforcement of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 5716 of Jan. 29, 199), the issue of adding up the service period of a public official falling under Article 23 (2) of the same Act shall be based on whether or not an application for adding up the service period of the relevant public official is made, and if a public official is appointed after Jan. 1, 1996, the enforcement of the same Act shall be two years from the date of appointment as a public official, and if a public official is in office as of Dec. 31, 1995, it shall be allowed to add up the service period to December 31, 1997, according to the transitional measures. This is not for administrative convenience, but for the exclusion of adding up the service period to the public official who falls under Article 23 (2) of the same Act, and it shall not be subject to the revised provision of Article 5 of the Addenda of the same Act, which provides for adding up the service period to the public official who did not know of the application period for adding up the service period.

Articles 23(2) and 24(1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 5716, Jan. 29, 199); Article 5 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 5716, Dec. 29, 1995)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Public Official Pension Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu13026 delivered on February 25, 2000

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 23 (2) of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 5117 of Dec. 29, 1995 and effective January 1, 1996) provides that where a retired public official, soldier, or school employee of a private school (excluding a person who was not subject to the Public Officials Pension Act, the Military Pension Act, or the Private School Teachers' Pension Act) is appointed as a public official, the former tenure of office or service under the relevant pension Act may be added to the tenure of office under paragraph (1) at his/her own request; Article 24 (1) of the same Act and Article 23 (2) of the same Act provide that a person who wishes to be added to the tenure of office or service under Article 23 (2) shall submit an application for adding to the tenure of office to the Corporation through the head of the agency to which he/she belongs; Article 5 of the Addenda provides that a public official who currently holds office on December 31, 1995 and falls under Article 23 (2) of the former Public Officials Pension Act may be added to the tenure of service.

Therefore, the determination of adding up the service period of a public official falling under Article 23 (2) of the former Public Officials Pension Act shall be based on the existence of an application for adding up the service period of the relevant public official, and in the case of a public official appointed after January 1, 1996, the former Public Officials Pension Act was enforced, two years from the date of appointment as a public official, and in the case of a public official currently in office on December 31, 1995, it was possible to apply for adding up the service period according to the transitional measures. This is not for administrative convenience, but for administrative convenience, but for the application for adding up the service period. Thus, even if a public official falling under Article 23 (2) of the same Act knew or was unable to know of the contents of Article 5 of the Addenda of the former Public Officials Pension Act which stipulated the time limit for adding up the service period, it cannot be determined whether to apply the above provision after adding up the service period to the public official's service period, which could not be applied to the changed service period.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the judgment of the court below that the disposition of this case which refused to add the period of service was legitimate on the ground that the defendant's filing of an application for adding the period of service against the defendant was expired on November 21, 1998 after the expiration of December 31, 1997, which was a public official who was in office as of December 31, 195, prior to the enforcement of the former Public Officials Pension Act, and who falls under Article 23 (2) of the same Act after the expiration of the period of time fixed under Article 5 of the Addenda of the same Act, which was after the expiration of December 31, 1997, was just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles

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 Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)