Where a person has been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment after payment of retirement benefits;

Where the grounds for restrictions on retirement benefits under Article 64 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act have become final and conclusive after a public official was prosecuted for a reason that occurred during his/her term of office after the total amount of retirement benefits has been paid, the retirement benefits paid in excess of the scope of a claim for retirement benefits recognized under the above provisions may be recovered.

Articles 31(1) and 64(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 55(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act

Plaintiff

Public Official Pension Corporation

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 6,793,430, which was made against the Plaintiff on February 4, 1994 (if the Plaintiff stated the date of the above disposition as of February 16, 1994 in the complaint’s claim column, it is clear that it is an error.) is revoked.

1. Details of the instant disposition

With respect to the circumstances leading to the disposition of this case, the following facts are acknowledged in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 8 (the same as Eul evidence 2), Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 3.

A. The Plaintiff was in office as a public official of Grade 10 in technical service at the Gu Office of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (name omitted), and retired on September 17, 1991, and received the total amount of retirement benefits corresponding to the period of service on October 29 of the same year.

B. However, on May 12, 192, the prosecutor of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, who was in office in the above (name omitted) Gu office, was detained as a fraudulent defendant's case with a total sum of KRW 9,706,953 from the victim's white-style on 15 occasions from January 25, 198 to February 12, 191, and was charged with the fraud that the plaintiff acquired 9,706,953 from the victim's white-style office, and acquired it by fraud, and was finally affirmed on the 23th of the same month on June 15, 1992.

C. Accordingly, under Article 64 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 5 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the defendant issued a report that "if a person who was a public official was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment for reasons that he was in office, it constitutes a person eligible for payment after reducing part of the retirement benefit amount pursuant to Article 64 (1) of the same Act, and Article 31 (1) 1 of the same Act as of February 4, 1994, and Article 26 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff on October 29, 1991 that the amount of excess 6,338,950 won among the retirement benefit amount already received by the plaintiff was 6,835,630 won, plus 1,174,580 won (=6,38,950 won + 1,835,630 won)" and then the above notice to the plaintiff's interest for arrears shall not be deemed as 36.381.4.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The defendant asserts that the disposition in this case is justifiable on the grounds of the above disposition and the related Acts and subordinate statutes, and the purpose of the plaintiff is to limit the amount of retirement benefits to public officials or former public officials in advance at the time of the payment of retirement benefits to the public officials or former public officials. Thus, in order to constitute a person subject to reduction of retirement benefits under the above provisions, it should be clear that he was already sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment before his retirement, or that he was under investigation into criminal acts subject to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment before his retirement, or that he was under investigation, or under criminal trial, at least before his retirement. The "reasons for reemployment" mentioned above should also be interpreted by limiting it to the plaintiff on the grounds directly related to the duties performed as a public official. However, the plaintiff did not have such reasons as above at the time of his retirement. However, the plaintiff asserts that the above retirement benefits amount was not subject to reduction regardless of his intention and the situation where the above person was not subject to reduction of retirement benefits amount under the above Acts and subordinate statutes and subordinate statutes.

B. According to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the main sentence of Article 64 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, where a person who is or was a public official has been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for reasons of his/her tenure of office, the amount of benefits shall be reduced and paid as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to Article 55 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a person who is or was a public official has been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for reasons of his/her tenure of office, the retirement benefits shall be reduced by 1/4 of the amount for a person whose tenure of office is less than 5 years under Article 64 of the Act, and one half of the amount for a person whose tenure of office is not less than 5 years, and the retirement allowances shall be reduced by 1/2 of the amount for a retirement pension. In this case, the retirement pension shall not be reduced until the month of the date of the cause of reduction. According to Article 64 (2) of the same Act, where a criminal trial is under suspension of sentence or more than 3 years, the amount may be determined separately.

Article 64 of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that a public official shall comply with the duty to maintain dignity (see, e.g., Article 63 of the State Public Officials Pension Act and Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Pension Act) and the duty to maintain dignity (see, e.g., Article 7(1) of the Constitution), in relation to his/her duties, such as the duty to maintain good faith, the duty to obey, the duty to refrain from leaving his/her place of work, the duty to maintain good faith, and the duty of integrity, as well as the duty to maintain dignity (see, e.g., Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 55 of the Local Public Officials Act). In light of the above provisions, Article 64 of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that the right to claim retirement benefits shall be granted only to a public official who has committed an offense or misconduct while in office and only to the extent that it is limited to the person who has committed a criminal act, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff’s right to claim retirement benefits has already been determined in advance due to the grounds for retirement benefits payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, in this case where there is no other evidence to acknowledge the existence of any unlawful cause different from the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is premised on the illegality of the disposition of this case, is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating parties.

Judges Lee Ho-sung (Presiding Judge)