(a) Order of the payment of pension in cases where a married spouse dies while a serious divorce is not revoked with a person who has rendered distinguished services to the State under the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, and whether the status relationship as a de facto spouse under Article 5 of the same Act is maintained (affirmative);

B. Whether registration by the Board of Patriots and Veterans Entitlement under the former Act on the Special Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (repealed by Act No. 3742 of Aug. 2, 1984) is the requirement for the occurrence of a claim for survivor pension (affirmative)

A. If the plaintiff was in a state of heavy marriage with deceased non-party 1, who was the deceased non-party 1, who was a person of distinguished service to the State, and the first marital wife was not revoked until the death of the deceased wife, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have the first priority in the payment order of pension under Article 13 of the above Act, as the only spouse under Article 5 (1) 1 of the above Act after the death of the plaintiff. Even if the middle marriage was revoked thereafter, the status relationship as a legal wife is extinguished, but the status as a de facto spouse under Article 5 (1) 1 of the above Act should be deemed to have been maintained.

B. Under the former Act on the Special Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (repealed by Act No. 3742 of Aug. 2, 1984), the registration of the Committee should be defined as one of the requirements for the occurrence of the survivors’ pension payment claims under the current Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished

(a) Articles 5 and 13 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons, etc., of Distinguished Service to the State; Articles 3 and 6 of the former Act on the Special Support, etc., of Persons, etc., of Distinguished Service to the State (repealed by Act No. 3742, Aug. 2, 1984); Articles 5, 6

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na26985 delivered on September 20, 1990

Of the judgment of the court below, the part on which the plaintiff sought confirmation of the status of a person of distinguished service to the State as a bereaved family member and the part against the plaintiff regarding pension after February 14, 1990 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded

The remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff are dismissed, and all costs of appeal by the dismissal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

1. Article 5(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the scope of bereaved family members or families of persons of distinguished service to the State who receive compensation under the same Act shall be as follows: 1. Spouse (including de facto spouse), 2. Children, 3. Parents, parents, and 3. Article 13 of the same Act provides that the priority order of bereaved family members to receive pension shall be based on the order stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the same Act, which shall take precedence over the spouse (including de facto spouse) of persons of distinguished service to the State (Article 1). Article 5(1) of the same Act provides that when a person of distinguished service to the State dies on January 2, 200, when his/her relationship with the person of distinguished service to the State (

2. According to the facts established by the court below, the deceased non-party 1, who was the deceased non-party 1, was married with the non-party 1, and was registered as the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, whose spouse was formed on September 1, 1942, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 2, and the deceased non-party 1, who was the deceased non-party 2, were married with the non-party 1, the deceased non-party 3, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, and the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 9, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 2, and the deceased party 18.

3. As above, if the plaintiff was in a state of heavy marriage with the deceased non-party 1 who was a person of distinguished service to the State, even if the status of the deceased status is considered to be the priority order, if the status of the deceased status is not cancelled until the death of the deceased status, it shall be deemed to be the only spouse after the death of the deceased status, and if the marital relationship is cancelled later, the status as a legal wife is extinguished, but the status as a de facto spouse within Article 5 (1) 1 of the above Act shall be deemed to be maintained. This interpretation is consistent with the purpose under Article 1 of the above Act and the basic ideology of honorable treatment under Article 2 (1) of the above Act, and Article 5 (2) 2 of the above Act shall include the de facto spouse in the status of the deceased status, and Article 13 (2) 2 of the above Act shall also be in accordance with the purport of marriage and the law of persons of distinguished service to the State.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the de facto spouse under Article 5 (1) 1 of the above Act, and this is affected by the judgment, which is justified within the scope of this.

On the second ground for appeal

Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Special Protection of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, which was enforced before January 1, 1985, provides that bereaved family members of this Act shall be paid pensions to persons who were awarded the Order of Merit, and Article 3 (Definitions) of the same Act provides that "drawee" means persons determined to be eligible under this Act from among those who are stipulated in this Act (Article 1); and "drawee of a patriotic branch" means those who are determined to be eligible under this Act from among those who are related to the deceased of a patriot and fall under any of the following subparagraphs (Article 2 (14) of the Act on the Special Protection of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, which was enforced before the enforcement of this Act; Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State; Article 6 (1) of the Act provides for the scope of bereaved family members or families entitled to receive compensation under the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part that the plaintiff sought confirmation of the status of a person who rendered distinguished services to the State as a bereaved family member and the part that the plaintiff lost regarding the pension after February 14, 1990 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below, and the remaining appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the plaintiff

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)