공무원연금급여 압류금지의 합헌성 여부 – 양육비채권이 집행채권인 경우를 중심으로 (헌재 2018.7.26. 2016헌마260 결정) -

For the protection of the beneficiary, the right to receive social security benefits may be prohibited from being transferred, provided as collateral, or seized, as prescribed by individual laws and regulations. Under the Public Officials Pension Act, the right of a beneficiary to receive a public servant pension has been prohibited from being seized since the enactment of the Public Officials Pension Act in 1960. The revised law in 2015 introduced a provision prohibiting seizure of benefits paid to beneficiaries below the amount stipulated by the Civil Execution Act. Under the Public Officials Pension Act, various benefits are social security benefits for the stabilization of living and welfare of retired public officials and their survivors, and the necessity of prohibition of seizure can be generally recognized. However, considering the characteristics of creditors and the living conditions of creditors, there are cases in which questions arise as to whether it is appropriate to prohibit or limit the seizure of pension benefits uniformly. In particular, due to the special relationship between child support claims and public servant pension entitlements, there is a need to reasonably adjust the conflicting interests between creditors and debtors. The decision on the subject of comment deals with the constitutionality of the provision subject to adjudication, which prevents child support creditors from seizing all or part of the right to receive benefits of the debtor, the public servant pension beneficiary. Prior to the decision, there was a precedent that acknowledged the constitutionality of the provision prohibiting seizure of public servant pension entitlements in the case of general creditors. In the following, the contents of the decision on the subject and precedents are reviewed, and considering 소 characteristics of child support claims, it is reviewed whether the constitutionality of the provision prohibiting seizure of public servant pension benefits can be considered differently. In addition, foreign legislative examples and Korean legislative theories regarding the rational adjustment between securing child support claims etc. and protection of social security benefits are reviewed. Finally, the meaning and limitations of the decision on the subject in related discussions are examined.