(a) ipso facto retirement under Article 61 of the former Local Public Officials Act; (b) Whether a person who has lost his/her status as a public official can claim retirement benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act even if he/she actually serves as a public official;

(c) Whether Article 49(1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act and Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act violate the Constitution concerning restrictions on retirement benefits due to punishment, etc.

A. The ipso facto retirement system provided for in Article 61 of the former Local Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 3448 of Apr. 20, 1981) does not require the appointment authority's expression of intent, etc., by itself, that the grounds for disqualification for the appointment of public officials provided for in each subparagraph of Article 31 of the same Act occur, but automatically loses its status as a public official at the time when the above grounds for disqualification occur. The ipso facto retirement system cannot be deemed unlawful and unfair, or it cannot be deemed that the public official continues to maintain ipso facto retirement, and it cannot be said that the grounds for ipso facto retirement are extinguished after the ipso facto retirement becomes effective, and even if the relevant grounds for disqualification do not fall under the grounds for disqualification provided for in Article 31 of the former Local Public Officials Act, it does not affect the validity

B. The former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 3221 of Dec. 28, 1979) or the Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 3221 of Dec. 28, 1979) are retirement allowances under the former Public Officials Pension Act or the Labor Standards Act, which are paid in cases where a legitimate public official retires while working as a public official, and even if a person who lost his status as a

C. Article 49(1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act and Article 53(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9266, Dec. 30, 1978) cannot be deemed to violate the constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to pursue happiness, private property, etc.

A. Articles 31 and 61(b) of the former Local Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 3448, Apr. 20, 1981); Articles 30 and 49(1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 3221, Dec. 28, 1979); Article 28(1) of the Labor Standards Act; Article 53(1)(c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9266, Dec. 30, 1978); Articles 10 and 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu459 Decided April 14, 1987 (Gong1987,826) 95Nu6496 Decided September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3431), Constitutional Court Decision 91Hun-Ma50 Decided June 29, 195

[Judgment of the court below]

Public Official Pension Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu38627 delivered on March 31, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion as to ratification of invalid acts or implied reappointment on its grounds as stated in its holding is just and acceptable, and there is no error in law in exercising the right to request for clarification, such as the theory of lawsuit. And the argument that based on the personnel order dated April 14, 1982, the plaintiff is legally qualified as a public official after being appointed within the lawful term of employment is not erroneous in the incomplete hearing, such as the theory of lawsuit, that the court below did not examine and determine it only when it reaches the final appeal. There is no ground for argument.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The ipso facto retirement system under Article 61 of the former Local Public Officials Act (Act No. 3152 of Dec. 6, 1978) does not require a person who has the authority to appoint public officials under each subparagraph of Article 31 of the former Local Public Officials Act to express his/her intention of dismissal, and it naturally loses his/her status as a public official at the time when he/she becomes disqualified under each subparagraph of the above Article 31 of the former Local Public Officials Act (Act No. 3152 of Dec. 6, 1978), and it cannot be said that there is no notification of ipso facto retirement, nor can it be deemed that the public official continue to maintain his/her status as a public official, and there is no reason for ipso facto retirement after the ipso facto retirement takes effect, and even if the disqualification does not fall under the grounds for disqualification under Article 31 of the former Local Public Officials Act (Act No. 3152 of Dec. 6, 1978), it does not affect the validity of the ipso facto retirement.

In addition, Article 49(1) of the former Public Officials Pension Act (Act No. 2747, Apr. 1, 1975) and Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 9130, Aug. 9, 1978) do not violate the Constitution that guarantees the right to pursue happiness, private property, etc. (see Constitutional Court Order 91Hun-Ma50, Jun. 29, 195). There is no reason to discuss.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)