Court: "Crimes Committed During Employment Cannot Lead to Civil Servant Pension Recovery Without Clear Evidence"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] A ruling has been made that it is unfair to recover a public official's pension without clear evidence solely because the period of the confirmed guilty offense overlaps with the time of public service.

The Seoul Administrative Court Division 5 (Presiding Judge Kim Soon-yeol) announced on the 27th that it ruled in favor of retired public official Mr. A in a lawsuit against the Public Officials Pension Service seeking cancellation of the restriction on retirement pension payments.

Mr. A, who worked as a local government secretary, took early retirement on December 31, 2010, and from January 7, 2011, served as the director and head of a welfare center operated by a social welfare corporation.

Later, Mr. A was indicted in December 2018 on charges including fraud, along with the corporation's CEO, for allegedly fabricating employee hires at the welfare center and receiving national and local subsidies from October 2010 to November 2016.

In April 2020, Mr. A and others were sentenced to one year in prison with a two-year probation, and the verdict became final without appeal. The Public Officials Pension Service notified Mr. A to reduce his pension, retirement benefits, and allowances and to recover approximately 55.6 million KRW, based on Article 65, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act, which allows reduction of pension and retirement benefits if a sentence of imprisonment or higher is confirmed due to reasons during employment. Mr. A filed a lawsuit in objection.

The court ruled in favor of Mr. A, citing insufficient evidence to conclude that he participated in the crime before his employment at the foundation.

The court stated, "Although the criminal judgment records that the plaintiff conspired with the corporation's CEO to falsely claim personnel expenses from October 2010, the plaintiff began working at the corporation only after retirement, in January 2011," and added, "It is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was involved in the crime before retiring as a public official."