The scope of "beneficiary" under Article 94 (2) of the National Pension Act

Article 94 (1) of the National Pension Act provides that "beneficiary" shall be construed as not only the person who actually received the survivor pension but also the heir of the pension holder shall be included in all survivors. If the extended interpretation is made, bereaved family members other than the beneficiary shall suffer losses not to refer to bereaved family members since the loss of the right to claim compensation against a third party without receiving the survivor pension is caused by the reduction of the amount. Thus, it is reasonable to say "beneficiary" as mentioned above, in reality, to refer to a person who has received the survivor pension from the National Pension Management Corporation, and therefore, if a third party's act causes the payment of survivor pension due to the same cause, the National Pension Management Corporation shall not pay survivor pension to the extent of the compensation for survivors who are the beneficiary. The provisions of Article 94 (2) of the same Act are limited to the compensation for survivors who are the beneficiary.

Article 94 of the National Pension Act

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

Plaintiff

National Pension Management Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu3765 delivered on May 31, 1995

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The "beneficiary" under Article 94 (1) of the National Pension Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") means not only the person who actually received the "beneficiary" but also the bereaved family members who are the inheritors of the pension holders are included. In addition, when the extended interpretation is made, bereaved family members, other than the beneficiary, have no ground to interpret the "beneficiary" as including both the person who actually received the survivor's pension and the bereaved family members who are the inheritors of the pension holders. In addition, the bereaved family members, other than the beneficiary, lose their right to claim damages against the third party even without receiving the survivor's pension, and cause losses not to be the bereaved family members. Therefore, the "beneficiary" under the above mentioned above should be interpreted as meaning the person who received the survivor's pension from the defendant in reality. Accordingly, in case where the ground for the payment of the survivor's pension occurred due to the third party's act, the defendant shall not pay the survivor's pension within the scope of the compensation amount for the bereaved family members of the beneficiary.

The judgment below to the same purport is correct and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation and application of Articles 63, 94 (1) and (2) of the Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The grounds of appeal pointing this out are not acceptable.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the calculation of the period for which the survivor pension under Article 94(2) of the Act was not paid is calculated in accordance with the “improvement of work process guidelines concerning the scope of damages caused by a third party’s act”, which is the guideline of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and that the period falls under 41 months. The lower court’s above calculation of the period is not unlawful, since it appears that the above guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Welfare do not violate the Act

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)