See Attached List 1 (Law Firm Round et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Government Employees Pension Service

March 6, 2014

1. All of the lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs 3 and 12 (Alternatives: Plaintiffs 11) are dismissed, and the part of the plaintiffs’ remaining lawsuits except Plaintiffs 3 and 12 (Alternatives: Plaintiffs 11) against whom the right to receive a retirement pension corresponding to the period of service of each public official listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list among the plaintiffs’ remaining lawsuits is dismissed.

2. The remaining plaintiffs' claims except plaintiffs 3 and 12 (Plaintiffs 11) are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

In electively, the Defendant’s revocation of the disposition for non-approval for aggregate of the tenure of office against the Plaintiffs on each disposition date listed in the attached Table 2 list, or the Plaintiffs are in the position of a person who has the right to receive retirement pension corresponding to the tenure of office of each public official listed in

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs were employed as judicial trainees from September 1, 1977 to August 31, 1979, and were employed as judges or public prosecutors on the date stated in the attached list No. 2, and retired on the date stated in the same list No. 2.

B. On the date indicated in the date of application for the list of the attached list 2, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for a request for the total period of service as a judicial trainee under the Public Officials Pension Act.

C. On the date indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 List No. 2, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that the approval of the above application is not possible on the ground that “the sum of the periods of employment is available only in cases where a public official is serving as a public official, and no application is available after the retirement” (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

D. On February 15, 2013, Plaintiffs 3 and 12 (Plaintiffs 11) received the above notification from the Defendant, but did not file an administrative appeal separately against it. The Plaintiffs other than Plaintiffs 3 and 12 (Plaintiffs 11: Plaintiffs hereinafter referred to as “Bmer”) filed an administrative appeal with the Public Official Pension Benefit Review Committee against the above notification, but the said Review Committee dismissed the said notification on the date indicated in the column for the decision on reexamination of the list 2 attached hereto.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 11, Gap evidence 13 and 14 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The part concerning the claim for revocation of each disposition of this case among the lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs 3 and 12 (Substitution: Plaintiff 11) and the part concerning the claim for confirmation of the status of the person who has the right to receive a retirement pension corresponding to the period of service of each public official among the plaintiffs

A. Whether the part of the claim for revocation of each of the dispositions of this case among the lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs 3 and 12 (Substitution: Plaintiff 11) is legitimate

The defendant raises a defense that the part of the claim for revocation of each of the dispositions of this case among the lawsuits of the plaintiff 3 and the plaintiff 12 (the plaintiff 11) is unlawful after the period for filing the lawsuit expires.

Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 12 (Plaintiff 11) filed a lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of each of the dispositions of this case on September 4, 2013, after the lapse of 90 days from the date on which each of the dispositions of this case was known, and the defendant filed a lawsuit of this case on February 13, 2013, that each of the dispositions of this case was not approved by the defendant on February 13, 2013, and that Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 12 (Plaintiff 11) received a written notice of the disposition of this case on February 15, 2013. The records of this case reveal that Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 12 (Plaintiff 11) filed a lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of each disposition of this case on September 4, 2013, since it is apparent that Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 12 (former: Plaintiff 11) filed a lawsuit of this case on September 4, 2013.

B. Whether the claim for confirmation of the status of the person who has the right to receive a retirement pension corresponding to the period of each public official’s employment is lawful in the

Since the plaintiffs' tenure of office should be added to the plaintiffs' public officials' tenure of office as long as they worked as judges or prosecutors after completion of the Judicial Research and Training Institute, they claim that the plaintiffs are in the position of a person who has a right to receive retirement pension corresponding to their tenure of office as public officials listed in the annexed list No. 2 list of the plaintiffs and seek confirmation.

According to Articles 25 and 42 of the Public Officials Pension Act, a retirement pension and other long-term benefits shall be paid to the retirement of public officials. According to Article 26 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, various benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act shall be paid by the Minister of Security and Public Administration upon request of the person entitled to receive such benefits. In addition, where a retired public official is appointed pursuant to Article 23 (2) of the Public Officials Pension Act, the former tenure of office may be added to the current tenure of office as he wishes, and under Article 24 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 17 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act, a person who intends to add the tenure of office shall submit an application for adding the tenure of office to the Public Officials Pension Service, and the GEPS shall notify the applicant and the head of the relevant agency of whether the application is added to the tenure of office and other necessary matters. Considering the above provisions, the right to receive retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act arises by recognizing the Minister of Security and Public Administration's specific rights, and the combined of the term of office.

Therefore, even if the plaintiffs retired after the plaintiffs served as public officials for at least 20 years, there is no specific right to receive retirement pension corresponding to the period of service of public officials aggregating the period of service of public officials after obtaining approval from the Public Official Pension Service adding the plaintiffs' period of service to the period of service of public officials, unless the Minister of Security and Public Administration recognizes the right to receive retirement pension corresponding to the period of service of public officials added to the period of service of public officials. Therefore, there is no legal interest to seek confirmation of the above right against the defendant. Therefore, the part of the

3. Determination on the remaining plaintiffs' claim for revocation of each disposition of this case

A. The remaining plaintiffs' assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Article 23(2) of the Public Officials Pension Act does not limit the scope of the subject of an application for adding up the tenure of office to a public official who is in service, so the remaining plaintiffs who are public officials may also apply for adding up the tenure of office for judicial trainees, and the defendant's refusal of such adding up is unlawful.

2) The fact that the remaining plaintiffs did not apply for adding up the tenure of office for judicial trainees while in office as public officials is due to the defendant's illegal law enforcement, which is "public officials who take temporary or conditional office" as referred to in the proviso of Article 2 (1) 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act, and is not a public official subject to the Public Officials Pension Act. However, even though the Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1938 Decided that the above law enforcement was unlawful and the remaining plaintiffs could file an application for adding up the tenure of office, the defendant's refusal of adding up the tenure of office is against the

3) Each of the instant dispositions that limit the person holding the right to apply for aggregation of the tenure of office as a public official is discrimination against a person who maintains his/her status as a public official and a person who loses his/her status without any ground,

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether a retired public official can apply for aggregation of his/her service period

The term of service means that a public official, soldier, or teacher or staff member of a private school is appointed as a public official after retirement under the application of the relevant Pension Act, and the former tenure of office or service period under the relevant Pension Act is added to the current tenure of office, and a person who intends to be added shall submit an application for aggregation to the Public Official Pension Service, and in such cases, he/she shall pay the aggregate of the retirement benefits received at the time of retirement plus a certain amount of interest to the Public Official Pension Service. This system is intended to ensure that the former tenure of office or service period can be added to the number of years of service so that a public official can lead a stable life after his/her retirement, and it is a system to enable a public official to add the previous tenure of office to the current tenure of office after his/her retirement, but in principle, it may be applied at any time during his/her former tenure of office, but it shall not be changed retroactively after the ground for payment of retirement becomes final and conclusive (see

Article 23(2) of the Public Officials Pension Act provides, “If a retired public official is appointed as a public official, the period of service or service under the previous relevant pension Act may be added to the period of service under paragraph (1) of this Article, at his/her own request.” Article 24(1) provides, “a person who intends to add the period of service or service under Article 23(2) shall submit to the GEPS an application for adding the period of service shall be submitted to the GEPS.” Article 23(2) provides, “A person who is appointed as a public official” can apply for adding the period of

Article 4 (1) of the Addenda of the former Public Officials Pension Act (Act No. 9905 of Dec. 31, 2009) provides that "any retired public official who may add his/her service period from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2005 pursuant to the amended provisions of Article 23 (2) whose service period falls short of 20 years and whose service period is at least 20 years (excluding any person whose previous service period or service period is at least 20 years) may apply for adding his/her service period within one year after this Act enters into force, and in certain cases, he/she may apply for adding his/her service period even after his/her retirement (the remaining plaintiffs have not applied for adding his/her service period until December 31, 2010)."

Therefore, it means a person who is qualified as a public official at the time of application to add the service period under Article 23(2) and Article 24(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act.

2) Whether the good faith principle is violated

The Supreme Court rendered a judgment to the effect that a judicial trainee under the former Court Organization Act (amended by Act No. 3245 of Jan. 4, 1980) is not a "public official who takes a temporary or conditional position" under the proviso of Article 2 (1) 1 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 3221 of Dec. 28, 1979), and thus, constitutes a public official subject to the former Public Officials Pension Act (Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1938 of Nov. 15, 2012), thereby making it possible to add the tenure of office to the tenure of office as a public official. However, even if the remaining plaintiffs are public officials, it cannot be deemed that there was a legal obstacle in filing an application for adding the tenure of office to the defendant at the time when they are in office, and thus, each of the above dispositions in this case cannot be deemed as violating the good faith principle.

3) Whether the principle of equality is violated

The defendant's refusal to add the previous judicial trainees to public officials who are currently in office as a public official by adding the former tenure of office to the tenure of office is only a difference according to the requirements for adding up the tenure of office under the current Public Officials Pension Act. Thus, this part of the remaining plaintiffs' assertion is not contrary to the principle of equality. However, this part of the remaining plaintiffs' assertion is deemed to include the assertion that it is unconstitutional in violation of the principle of equality under this Constitution, which permits adding up the tenure of office only to public officials in office. Thus, this part of the above legal provision is examined.

As part of the pension system, the total tenure of office is recognized as a broad legislative formation right of legislators, and it is not an area particularly requiring equality in the Constitution, but an area that seriously restricts fundamental rights, so it is sufficient as a general principle review rather than a strict review (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 98Hun-Ma363, Dec. 23, 199).

① Under Articles 46(1) and 48(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, in order to pay retirement pension or lump-sum retirement benefits after retirement under Article 46(1) of the same Act, it is necessary to determine the tenure of office until retirement is late. ② The financial resources for retirement benefits consisting of, in principle, “contributions” borne by public officials in office and “charges borne by employers, such as the State and local governments,” and contributions are withheld at the agency to which they belong as much as the amount determined according to the tenure of office (Articles 66, 67, and 69 of the Public Officials Pension Act). If it is possible to apply for the aggregation of office without any restriction after retirement, the increase in terms of service period and time and methods of calculating the amount of appropriate contributions and charges to be additionally paid, the issue of securing budget, and calculation of the appropriate amount of interest on retirement lump-sum benefits to be returned by the applicant, and (3) If the sum of the tenure of office is permitted, most of the applicants may not be considered to violate the principle of equality of the government officials pension.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the lawsuits by Plaintiffs 3 and 12 (Large Sales Board: Plaintiff 11) are unlawful, and the part of the claim for confirmation of status of a person who has the right to receive a retirement pension corresponding to the period of service of each public official among the remaining plaintiffs' lawsuits is unlawful, and thus all of them are dismissed. The part of the claim for revocation of each disposition of the plaintiffs in this case is dismissed as

[Attachment]

Judges anti-government (Presiding Justice) Kim Yong-Uk Kim Jong-hwan