In the Public Officials Pension Act, the purport of including “spouse in a de facto marital relationship” in the scope of bereaved family members, and, in fact, whether the spouse may in fact be protected as bereaved family members pursuant to the above Act if it can be deemed that a de facto divorce has been made between the deceased and the spouse under the law, even in cases where

In the Public Officials Pension Act, “spouse who was in a de facto marital relationship” is also included in the scope of bereaved family members. However, even though the substance of marriage is in fact having marital life and there is no report of marriage, if it is not recognized as a legally marital relationship, it is intended to protect the spouse in fact. If there is a legal spouse other than the spouse, if there is a legal spouse, in fact, there is a legal intention of divorce between the spouse, and if there are special circumstances, such as where the legal marriage exists between the spouse and the marital relationship is de facto extinguished and divorce is invalidated, the spouse can be protected as

Article 3 (1) 2 (a) of the Public Officials Pension Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Law Firm KEL, Attorneys Jeong Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Public Official Pension Corporation

September 5, 2007

1. On March 26, 2007, the decision that the Defendant rendered a non-approval of the application for succession to a survivor pension against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence of 1 to 12, Gap evidence of 14 to 25, Eul evidence of 1, and the testimony of non-party 2 of the witness, the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. Nonparty 1 retired from a local forest official on February 18, 1999 as of February 18, 1939, and died on March 10, 2007 while receiving retirement pension from around that time (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. From around 1968 to around 1968, the Plaintiff lived with the deceased, and reported a marriage with the deceased on January 11, 2007, with Nonparty 3 (the birth of April 15, 1969) and Nonparty 2 (the birth of February 23, 1972).

C. The plaintiff himself asserted that he constitutes the deceased's spouse under Article 3 (1) 2 (a) of the Public Officials Pension Act, and filed a claim for the payment of the survivor pension under Article 56 (1) 1 of the same Act with the defendant. Accordingly, on March 26, 2007, the defendant rendered a decision not to approve the application for survivor pension succession (hereinafter "the disposition of this case") on the ground that "the plaintiff and the deceased were married on January 11, 2007, after his retirement." At the time of the deceased's employment, the plaintiff and the deceased were not in a mixed de facto marital relationship under the status of his spouse in a legal marital relationship, and thus, at the time of the deceased's employment, the plaintiff and the deceased were not included in the spouse under the same Article, who are subject to the succession to the survivor pension."

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is a de facto spouse who had been in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased more than before the deceased retired, and was supported by the deceased at the time of the deceased's death, while the legal marriage between the deceased and the non-party 4 was terminated only since the divorce was not reported before 1968 and the de facto marital relationship was terminated. Thus, considering that the de facto marital relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased should be legally protected, the plaintiff constitutes a survivor pension recipient under the Public Officials Pension Act (the person who was in a de facto marital relationship at the time of the de facto marriage).

Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap 2 through 30 and Eul 2 and the testimony in non-party 2.

(1) The Deceased reported a marriage on January 24, 1956 with Nonparty 4, but completed the divorce on January 9, 2007, and thereafter reported a marriage on January 11, 2007 with the Plaintiff.

(2) While there is no child between the deceased and the non-party 4, they did not actually lead a family life from around 1968 because they are not good in marital relations, the deceased was living together with the plaintiff around 1968, and he was living together on April 15, 1969, and on February 23, 1972, gave birth to the non-party 3 and the non-party 2, who was living together with his domicile until the deceased's death.

(3) However, as the Plaintiff and the Deceased did not report a marriage, the above children were registered on the deceased’s family register by gathering Nonparty 4. In recent years, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation against Nonparty 4, 3, and 2 under the Jeonju District Court (case number omitted) that no parental relation existed between the deceased and Nonparty 4 and the deceased as a result of the divorce report between the deceased and Nonparty 4 and the marriage report between the deceased and the Plaintiff, and received a favorable judgment on July 4, 2007.

(4) In relation to the marriage with the deceased, Nonparty 4 stated that “The deceased was not able to have a child by marriage with the plaintiff, but the family register was not prepared, and thus, it remains in the marital relationship formally because it did not want to file a divorce report, but the same status as that of the divorced was similar to that of the deceased, the deceased was living together for more than 40 years, and the agreement was completed on January 9, 2007 in accordance with the deceased’s request for a divorce report.”

(5) From May 8, 2002 to June 23, 2002, from March 23, 2004 to April 16, 2004, from January 3, 2007 to January 23, 2007, the deceased had been living together with the non-party 4 on three occasions for the disposal of the property of the clan in the Gunsan-si, for the convenience of reporting divorce, etc., but did not live together with the non-party 4 on three occasions.

(d) Markets:

(1) A de facto marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Deceased

(A) Article 3(1)2 Item (a) of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that “spouse as a bereaved family member entitled to a survivor pension shall be limited to “a person who was in a marital relationship at the time of re-employment” but shall include a person who was in a de facto marital relationship. Thus, if it is proved that the parties are subjectively and objectively “a person in a marital relationship” and “a person in a de facto marital relationship,” it shall be deemed that the case constitutes “a person in a marital relationship.”

(B) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff appears to have maintained the marital relationship with the deceased from around 1968. Thus, it is recognized that at the time of the deceased’s employment, the Plaintiff had established a de facto marital relationship with the deceased and maintained it until the deceased’s death.

(2) Whether a de facto marital relationship is a de facto marital relationship

(A) As above, in the Public Officials Pension Act, “spouse in a de facto marital relationship” is also included in the scope of bereaved family members. This is the purport to protect a spouse in a case where the substance of marriage is not recognized as a legally marital relationship because of the absence of a report of marriage even though they actually have marital relationship. If there is a legal spouse other than the spouse, in fact, in the case where there are special circumstances, such as the existence of legal divorce between the spouse in the form of a formal divorce, but the de facto marital relationship is extinguished and divorce is deemed to have occurred, the spouse shall be deemed to be in fact protected as bereaved family members under the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1497 delivered on July 27, 1993).

(B) In this case, we examine: (a) from around 1968, the deceased was living separately with the non-party 4 in a legal marital relationship; (b) from around 40 years to around 1968, the deceased was living together with the plaintiff and his domicile for the above period; (c) the deceased was living alone; (d) there was no economic help or support for the non-party 4 during the above period; and (d) there was no other exchange with the non-party 4; (d) the non-party 4 did not raise an objection against the birth of the deceased and living together with the plaintiff; (d) the non-party 4 did not receive any economic help from the deceased; and (e) the deceased did not have a marital relationship with the non-party 4, who did not have an independent marital relationship with the deceased; and (e) the deceased did not have a marital relationship with the non-party 4, who did not have a substantial marital relationship with the deceased; and therefore, (e) the deceased did not have a marital relationship with the plaintiff and the non-party 4.

(C) Therefore, the plaintiff constitutes "a person in a de facto marital relationship at the time of re-employment" under Article 3 (1) 2 (a) of the Public Officials Pension Act, and the defendant's disposition that the plaintiff does not belong to the beneficiary of the survivor pension is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)