Majority Opinion "Survivor's Pension Introduced to Protect Family Livelihoods After Death of 'Breadwinner'"
Opposing Opinion "Spouse, Contributor to Pension Formation... Not a Rational Legislation"
[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the provision in the Public Officials Pension Act that revokes pension eligibility when a spouse receiving a survivor's pension remarries does not violate the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court announced on the 5th that it upheld the constitutionality of Article 59, Paragraph 1 of the former Public Officials Pension Act, which deprives survivor's pension rights upon remarriage, by a 5 (constitutional) to 4 (unconstitutional) decision in a case referred by the Seoul High Court. The Seoul High Court had argued that the provision violated the principle of minimal infringement and property rights.
Person A had been receiving a survivor's pension monthly after the death of spouse B, a military official, in 1992. However, in 2014, A entered into a de facto marital relationship with another person. The Public Officials Pension Service notified A in 2017 that it would reclaim approximately 38 million won in pension payments made from 2014 to that point.
In response, A filed a lawsuit to cancel the disposition against the pension service but lost in the first trial. The Seoul High Court, which handled the second trial, accepted A's request and referred the case to the Constitutional Court for a constitutional review.
The Constitutional Court stated, "Survivor's pensions were originally introduced to protect the livelihood of families who face difficulties due to the death of the breadwinner, so the recognition of survivor's pension rights should not necessarily depend solely on the joint contribution to the pension fund." It further explained, "If a person who becomes capable of support through remarriage loses the survivor's pension right, that right transfers to another survivor. Returning the pension right to A depending on economic circumstances or the end of remarriage could harm the other survivor who has already received the right or cause complex legal issues."
On the other hand, Justices Lee Seok-tae, Lee Eun-ae, Lee Jong-seok, and Kim Ki-young dissented, stating, "A spouse assists the public official's diligent work and forms an economic community throughout the marriage, contributing to the formation of the pension. Permanently depriving the entire pension right solely because the survivor status is lost, without fairly considering such contributions, is difficult to view as rational legislation."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
