beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Article 41-2(2) of the former Public Officials Pension Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15523, Mar. 20, 2018; hereinafter “former Public Officials Pension Act”) provides that “where a public official dies, condolence money shall be paid to his/her spouse; where there is no spouse, condolence money shall be paid to his/her spouse, and where there is no spouse, it shall be paid to the person who solicits for funeral and ancestral rites, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.” instead of adopting a definition provision on “spouse” under Article 3(1)3(a) of the Public Officials Pension Act, the issues of the instant case include a person who was in a de facto marital relationship with “spouse” among the bereaved family members under the Public Officials Pension Act, under Article 3(1)3(a) of the same Act, instead of adopting a definition provision on “spouse”
2. Determination
A. In light of the legislative background of condolence money under the Public Officials Pension Act, the text and purport of relevant provisions, etc., the “spouse” under Article 41-2(2) of the former Public Officials Pension Act should be deemed to include a person in a de facto marital relationship, and where a public official dies, the same as the death condolence money is recognized to the person who was in a legal marital relationship with the public official.
The reasons are as follows.
1) As the Public Officials Pension Act was wholly amended by Act No. 1133 on October 1, 1962, the provisions for funeral expenses similar to the current “Condolence money” (Article 25 was newly established. According to the said provision, the person in a de facto marital relationship, who is eligible for funeral expenses, did not explicitly exclude him/her from the beneficiary of funeral expenses.
Since then, the provision on funeral expenses was deleted from the Public Officials Pension Act by Act No. 3221 on December 28, 1979 on the grounds of duplicate payments following the enforcement of medical insurance for public officials.