Whether retired public officials can immediately seek the payment of unpaid retirement allowances against the Public Official Pension Management Corporation without the determination of retirement allowances of the Public Official Pension Management Corporation (negative)

In full view of the contents and purport of the provisions on retirement allowances under the Public Officials Pension Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, when a person entitled to retirement allowances applies for the payment of retirement allowances after obtaining confirmation from the head of the agency to which he belongs, the Public Officials Pension Corporation has the specific right to retirement allowances by making the payment decision, and the above decision includes not only the right to receive retirement allowances but also the right to make a preliminary decision on the specific amount of benefits to be paid in addition to the right to make a decision on the payment of retirement allowances. Accordingly, when the Public Officials Pension Corporation makes a decision on the payment of retirement allowances, the specific amount of benefits to be paid should be considered as an administrative disposition, and the determination on the amount of benefits shall not be considered as an administrative disposition only because it is a party to legal relations under public law and has expressed in fact and legal opinion as to the scope of its payment obligation, and it shall not be considered as an administrative disposition (in case of retirement pension, the first decision on the amount of unpaid benefits (including the decision on the amount of benefits), and if there is an increase or decrease in the amount of benefits by amendment of the statutes, it shall be considered as a party suit.

Articles 26(1) and 83(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 19-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6417 delivered on December 6, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 224) Supreme Court Decision 2002Du3522 Delivered on September 5, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2023) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du15195 Delivered on December 24, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 207)

Plaintiff

Public Official Pension Corporation

April 20, 2007

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 49,480,850 won with 5% interest per annum from July 7, 2002 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 14, 1967, the Plaintiff was appointed to state public officials (Ministry of Justice) and served for 34 years and 11 months thereafter, retired on July 7, 2002.

B. After the Defendant decided the Plaintiff as the beneficiary of the retirement allowance under Article 61-2(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, it paid 64,806,700 won (amount of monthly remuneration 3,273,066 won x 33 years x 60% x 60% x 10 won ) as the retirement allowance calculated under Article 61-2(2) of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 52-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

First, we examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A. Article 26 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that "All kinds of benefits shall be paid by the Corporation by decision of the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs upon request by the head of the agency to which the person entitled to receive them belongs, upon confirmation by the head of the agency to which the relevant public official belongs: Provided, That in the determination of kinds of benefits as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it shall undergo deliberation by the Public Officials Pension Benefit Council, and the disaster aid and condolence money of a local government public official shall be paid by the decision of the head of the local government." Article 83 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that "the head of the agency shall investigate and confirm the personal records necessary for the occurrence of grounds for benefits, payment of contributions, and calculation of the tenure of office, and other personal matters of a person who is or was a public official." Article 19-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act provides

B. In full view of the provisions of Articles 26(1) and 83(1) of the above Public Officials Pension Act and Article 19-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the right to receive various benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act is not just a specific claim, but also a specific right arises by making a decision on payment upon confirmation by the head of the agency to which the relevant public official belonged. Accordingly, where a person who intends to receive various benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act requests recognition of the right under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and makes a disposition to refuse or partially recognize the claim for recognition, the public Officials Pension Corporation shall seek payment of the benefits as a party litigation only after the specific right is recognized by filing an appeal lawsuit against the State without a specific right (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu18532, Sept. 15, 1995; 200Nu6365, Dec. 36, 2006; 2005Du6375, Dec. 26, 2996).

C. However, if the payment of part of the retirement pension is suspended due to the amendment of the Public Officials Pension Act or the amount of pension is changed due to the amendment of the Public Officials Pension Act while receiving a retirement pension due to the recognition of the Public Officials Pension Corporation, it is naturally determined pursuant to the amended Act and subordinate statutes, and the amount is not finalized only by the decision and notification of the retirement pension under Article 26 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act. Thus, even if the Public Officials Pension Corporation expressed its intent to refuse payment of part of the retirement pension, the expression of intention is not an administrative disposition that forms and determines the right to claim the retirement pension, but it is merely an actual and legal opinion as to the existence and scope of the payment obligation as a party to a legal relationship under public law, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition. Accordingly, the lawsuit seeking the payment of the unpaid retirement pension is a party litigation under public law (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du3522, Sept. 5, 2003; 2003Du15195, Dec. 24). 24.

D. We examine the instant case in light of such legal principles. The Plaintiff’s claim as the instant lawsuit pertains to the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance, and the Plaintiff did not institute an administrative litigation against the Defendant’s decision on retirement benefits at the time of retirement, and there was no additional claim for retirement benefits to the Defendant prior to filing the instant lawsuit. There is no dispute between the parties.

However, considering the relevant laws and regulations on retirement allowances under the Public Officials Pension Act and the above legal principles, in the case of retirement allowances, the Public Officials Pension Corporation has specific rights by making a decision on the payment of retirement allowances upon confirmation by the head of the agency to which the person who has the right to receive retirement allowances belongs. The above decision on the payment of retirement allowances includes not only the right to receive retirement allowances but also the right to make a decision on the amount of wages. This is to grant a preliminary decision on the specific amount of wages to be paid to the Public Officials Pension Corporation in addition to the right to make a decision on the retirement allowances. Therefore, when the Public Officials Pension Corporation makes a decision on the retirement allowances, the specific amount of wages to be paid should be determined under the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes, and the decision on the amount of wages shall not be deemed administrative disposition only because it is a party to legal relations under the Public Officials Pension Corporation Act, and it shall not be deemed that the scope of its payment obligation is an administrative disposition (in case of retirement pension, the first decision on the amount of wages (including the decision on the amount of wages).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s specific right is recognized by filing an appeal against the Defendant’s decision on the application for retirement allowances, etc., and then the Plaintiff is required to seek the payment of the relevant benefits by a party suit. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s failure to undergo such a procedure, and as such, the Plaintiff is not allowed to immediately seek the payment of the unpaid retirement allowances by a party suit against the Defendant without any specific right to the retirement allowances that the Plaintiff seeks for an additional claim against the Defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Central Public-Private Partnership (Presiding Judge) Dozers