Court Recognizes Same-Sex Spouses as Dependents for Health Insurance Eligibility

Second Trial Highlights the 'Principle of Equality'
Overturns First Trial and Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Couples

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A same-sex couple married for five years won a lawsuit in the second trial seeking recognition of dependent status under health insurance. The first trial ruling, which made a customary judgment based on precedents and social awareness, was overturned in the appellate court.

At 10 a.m. on the 21st, the Seoul High Court Administrative Division 1-3 (Presiding Judges Lee Seunghan, Shim Junbo, Kim Jongho) ruled in favor of So Seonguk (32), the same-sex spouse of Kim Yongmin (33), in the appeal against the National Health Insurance Service’s decision to impose insurance premiums.

The court stated, "The first trial ruling is canceled. The defendant’s imposition of insurance premiums on the plaintiff is canceled. The total litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant."

Sung Sowook and Kim Yongmin, a same-sex couple who filed a lawsuit against the National Health Insurance Service for recognition of dependent qualification under health insurance [Photo by Yonhap News]

So far, the main issue in the appeal has been the 'principle of equality.' The National Health Insurance Service has recognized the dependent status of common-law spouses who have not registered their marriage.

During the trial, the court said to the National Health Insurance Service, "The Service has included de facto (opposite-sex) spouses under the protection principle of the National Health Insurance Act, but this is a judgment made by the Service itself," adding, "In that respect, it appears that the Service’s discretionary act is involved." The court pointed out that although opposite-sex common-law spouses are not legally recognized spouses, the Service has recognized and protected them as dependents, unlike in the case of So’s couple.

The National Health Insurance Service argued, "According to the Korean Civil Code system and precedents, the concept of marriage itself presupposes opposite-sex couples," and claimed that they cannot be considered common-law partners. They also mentioned, "Although new forms of living communities have recently been formed in reality, their protection is a legislative and policy issue to be resolved through social consensus."

Park Hanhee, a lawyer from Hope Making Law representing So, emphasized, "So and Kim have held a wedding ceremony and live together with family interactions," and added, "Since this is essentially no different from opposite-sex marriage, the decision in this case regarding So, a same-sex common-law spouse, is a discriminatory act infringing on the right to equality."

Previously, So lived with Kim from 2017 and held a wedding ceremony in May 2019. Although not legally recognized as a married couple, So was registered as a dependent of Kim, a health insurance workplace subscriber, from February 2020. The National Health Insurance Service had also guided that registration is possible for common-law relationships. However, after their story was reported, in October of the same year, the Service converted So to a regional health insurance subscriber, stating, "You do not meet the conditions for dependent recognition," and imposed insurance premiums. Disagreeing with this decision, So filed a lawsuit in February 2021 seeking cancellation of the unfair insurance premium claim.

The first trial rejected So’s claim, stating, "Under the current legal system, it is difficult to evaluate as a same-sex common-law marriage." It added, "'Marriage,' according to precedents of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, as well as general social awareness, still fundamentally involves the union of a man and a woman," and "There is no basis to extend the interpretation to same-sex unions." It also said, "The imposition decision is an administrative discretionary guideline unrelated to the principle of equality," and "Since same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions cannot be regarded as essentially the same, treating them differently does not violate the constitutional principle of equality."