공무원연금법에 따른 재직기간 합산에 관하여

In the subject case, the plaintiffs, who retired after working as judges or prosecutors, filed a lawsuit seeking either the cancellation of the refusal of their application to have their period at the Judicial Research and Training Institute included in their total length of service for retirement pension calculation, or a confirmation of their status to receive a retirement pension corresponding to their entire years of service. The court's decision confirmed the previously established principle that, in disputes over the payment of benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act, the relevant right must be recognized through an appeals suit against the determination on the request for benefits. It applied this legal principle to the case, holding that a lawsuit for confirmation regarding an entitlement to benefits is impermissible when a specific right to receive benefits has not yet been established. Accordingly, the court judged that the plaintiffs' request for confirmation of their status lacked "interest in confirmation" and was inadmissible. Furthermore, regarding the claim for cancellation of the administrative disposition, the court interpreted the Public Officials Pension Act as allowing the application for aggregation of service periods only while still in office as a public official, absent any special exception. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim, made after retirement, was dismissed. According to legal precedents, a claim for public law benefits should be brought as a party litigation suit when a specific right arises directly from the law without any administrative action, and as an administrative litigation suit when the right depends on a decision by the administrative authority. A declaratory action (confirmation suit) is permitted only when there is uncertainty or risk regarding an existing right or legal status, and the lawsuit is the most effective and appropriate means of resolving the dispute. In the plaintiffs’ case, the statute of limitations for contesting the decision on retirement benefits had already expired, so allowing a confirmation suit regarding a preliminary legal relationship would undermine the policy of the statutory limitations. Additionally, even if the plaintiffs were to obtain a judgment, they would still need to repeat the benefit application procedure, making confirmation an ineffective remedy. Thus, the court’s conclusion dismissing the request for confirmation was proper. Moreover, considering the wording of the Public Officials Pension Act, the unique nature of calculating service periods, the purpose of the aggregation system, and the legislative history of relevant provisions, the court correctly interpreted that applications for service period aggregation are allowed only during active service as a public official. Therefore, the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ revocation suit is also justified. However, applying legal precedents in public law benefit claims as they stand may result in legitimate right-holders bearing risks such as expiration of legal action periods or the completion of statutes of limitations due to improper selection of the litigation type. Therefore, institutional and practical improvements on this matter are necessary.