In a case where Party A, who was receiving pension loans, etc. from the Public Official Pension Service while in office as a teacher, retired and claimed payment of retirement pension and retirement allowances, and the Public Official Pension Service, issued a notice of refusal of payment of retirement benefits on the ground that “A, even though the amount of loans exceeds the total amount for 1/2 of retirement pension and 1/2 of retirement pension of the month, did not consent to excess deduction exceeding 1/2 of retirement pension and did not express his/her intention to make temporary repayment,” the case holding that the part of the above disposition which did not pay retirement allowances to Party A and deducts the amount of retirement pension at once from the loan is lawful, but the part which

In a case where Gap, who was a pension loan, etc. from the Public Officials Pension Service while in office as a teacher, received a retirement pension and retirement pension after retirement, the Public Officials Pension Service issued a notice of rejection of retirement pension payment on the ground that "A did not consent to excess 1/2 of the monthly retirement pension and did not express his/her intention to make temporary repayment" even though the amount of loans exceeds the total amount of 1/2 of the monthly retirement pension and 1/2 of the monthly retirement pension," the case holding that it does not violate the above provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act allowing Gap to temporarily deduct the retirement allowance from the outstanding principal and interest of the school loan work prescribed by the Minister of Security and Public Administration in accordance with Article 72 (6) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act, and thus, it is legitimate to allow the retirement public official to temporarily deduct the retirement allowance from the above disposition without paying the retirement allowance, but the portion of the above disposition is set at three years with the maturity of the monthly retirement pension and thus compelling the retirement public official to pay the retirement pension in whole or in part of retirement pension payment.

Article 31-2 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 72 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Lee, Attorneys Lee Won-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Government Employees Pension Service

April 3, 2014

1. On October 11, 2013, the Defendant’s refusal to pay a retirement pension among the disposition of refusal to pay retirement benefits against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The disposition of refusal to pay retirement allowances against the plaintiff on October 11, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff voluntarily retired on August 31, 2013 while working as a teacher at a public high school for a period of 26 months.

B. On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a retirement pension and an early retirement allowance claim to the Defendant for the payment of “retirement Pension” and “retirement allowance” (hereinafter “instant claim”).

C. While the Plaintiff was in office as a teacher, he borrowed money from the Defendant as the name of the pension loan and the school loan. As of September 30, 2013, the outstanding principal and interest were KRW 11,016,280, and the school loan was KRW 66,780,000, respectively (total 77,796,280, hereinafter the Plaintiff’s pension loan and the school loan were added to the Plaintiff’s pension loan to the Defendant).

D. As a result of the determination of the Plaintiff’s claim for retirement benefits, the Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff’s monthly retirement pension is KRW 1,945,180; (b) the retirement allowances is KRW 23,689,820; (c) from KRW 77,796,280 to KRW 23,689,820; (d) deducted the Plaintiff’s retirement allowances from KRW 77,796,280; and (d) the remainder of KRW 54,106,460 from KRW 1/2 of the monthly retirement pension was repaid at KRW 972,590 on the ground that the repayment period exceeds three years, which is the maximum repayment period prescribed in the regulations on the business of the student loan (if repayment is made at KRW 972,590,000 per month, the sum thereof falls short of the amount of the loans in this case); and (b) did not express the Plaintiff’s consent to the retirement pension in this case on the ground that the Plaintiff’s repayment was not made in excess of 13 months.

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed the instant lawsuit on November 6, 2013.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant's assertion that the dispatch of the above notice is merely an instruction given to the plaintiff, and that it cannot be deemed a disposition, since it is merely an instruction given to the plaintiff, since it is not an expression of the plaintiff's refusal to pay retirement benefits, but an instruction given to the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be

However, in the Public Officials Pension Act, the types of the pension, the eligibility for receiving the pension, the period, timing, and methods of payment of the pension. Therefore, it is an administrative disposition that directly affects the rights of the beneficiary of the pension without justifiable grounds even though the beneficiary of the retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act claims the payment of the pension through the prescribed procedures.

According to the facts and evidence examined earlier, the Defendant, on October 11, 2013, sent a notice of refusal to pay a retirement allowance and a retirement pension on the ground that “The amount of the instant loan exceeds the aggregate for three years of retirement allowance and retirement pension 1/2 of the monthly retirement pension.” Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not consent to the deduction exceeding 1/2 of the monthly retirement pension and did not express his/her intention to make a lump-sum repayment.” This is not simply notifying the supplementary method of the instant request, but is subject to appeal litigation. Accordingly, the Defendant’s main safety objection cannot be accepted (hereinafter the Defendant’s dispatch of the above notice is referred to as the “instant disposition”).

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Claims on retirement allowances

The Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act delegated by the Minister of Security and Security shall set a grace period and a repayment period of the outstanding amount in the case of retirement of a public official who received a student loan. Meanwhile, Article 72(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides, “The repayment of the student loan shall be made in installments for four years after the public official who received the loan or his/her children graduate from the school, and the person liable to collect the loan shall collect and pay monthly remuneration to the GEPS: Provided, That the grace period and the repayment period in any of the following cases shall be determined by the Minister of Security and Security: Provided, That the Minister of Security and Security shall have set a grace period and a repayment period in relation to the retirement allowance to be received by the plaintiff in the year 2013 which served as the basis for the decision on whether to pay retirement benefits to the plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant processing period”). Nevertheless, the instant processing period is unlawful because the monthly repayment exceeds 1/2 of the monthly repayment amount, the amount in excess shall be immediately deducted from the monthly payment period or the lump-sum payment period other than this pension allowance.

2) Claim on retirement pension

The Public Officials Pension Act provides that when a former public official bears the same obligation as the loans in this case against the defendant, the retirement pension shall be deducted from the retirement pension. However, even in this case, it shall not be deducted from the retirement pension in excess of 1/2. Nevertheless, the instant processing standards set the repayment period by allowing retirement public officials to choose only one year, two years, and three years in the application form for retirement benefits if a student loan has been provided to the retired public official, and accordingly, if a public official's loan to the defendant exceeds the total amount of 1/2 of the monthly retirement pension, the defendant takes measures to refuse the payment of the retirement pension, unless he/she voluntarily makes a partial lump sum repayment at his/her own share or agrees to deduct more than 1/2 of the monthly retirement pension. Accordingly, this policy is contrary to the purport of the above provision of the Public Officials Pension Act, which is the mother corporation of the instant processing criteria, and the part of the disposition in this case that the defendant refused to pay the retirement pension in this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the allegation that the immediate deduction of retirement allowances from the instant loans is unlawful

Article 31-2 of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that where a former public official has outstanding principal and interest of school loans, unredeemed principal and interest of school loans, etc., benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act may be deducted. Article 72(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the repayment of school loans shall be made in installments for four years with a grace period of two years after the public official who received the loans or his/her children graduate from the school, but the person liable to collect the contributions shall collect the loans from monthly remuneration and pay them to the GEPS: Provided, That pursuant to subparagraph 3 of the proviso, the grace period and repayment period in cases of retirement of the public official who received the loans shall be determined by the Minister of Security and Security, and the processing standards of this case set pursuant to the above proviso provide that retirement allowances may be deducted from the outstanding principal and interest of the school loans. In relation to the repayment of the school loans in question, since the above provision of the Enforcement Decree provides that the public official or his/her children shall be paid monthly remuneration under the premise that the public official will continue to serve as a public official for two years after their graduation.

2) Determination as to the allegation that it was unlawful to set the repayment period for loans under retirement pension of retired public officials out of the instant processing standards for retirement pension for a maximum of three years

Article 72(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act provides for a grace period and the repayment period in cases where a public official who has received a student loan or his/her children graduated while in office, and the Minister of Security and Security may determine such grace period and the repayment period in cases where the public official in receipt of the loan retires. However, there is no restriction on the establishment of a grace period and the repayment period among the Minister of Security and Public Administration, but Article 31-2 of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that the former public official may deduct the amount from the benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act in cases where the principal and interest of the student loan is unredeemed and the outstanding principal and interest due to the pension loan are unredeemed. The proviso provides that the retirement pension may be specially deducted up to 1/20. Accordingly, in preparing the processing period for the repayment of the debt to the defendant of the retirement public official like the instant loan under the delegation of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act, it does not require a grace period separately for the plaintiff, but it is unlawful to establish a retirement pension for a maximum period exceeding 1/2 months from the retirement pension under the above provision.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, among the instant dispositions, the part regarding the Plaintiff’s temporary deduction from the instant loans without paying KRW 23,689,820 to the Plaintiff is lawful. However, the part regarding the Plaintiff’s refusal to pay the retirement pension as well as the retirement pension that the Plaintiff could receive from the instant disposition is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)