A district court ruling has determined that retirement pensions should also be paid to railway employees who were forcibly abducted during the Korean War.
On June 13, the Administrative Division 11 of the Seoul Administrative Court, presided over by Director General Kim Joon-young, ruled in favor of Ms. B in a lawsuit against the Government Employees Pension Service regarding the cancellation of a retirement pension non-payment decision in relation to Mr. A, who was a former railway employee.
Mr. A was working as a railway employee in the Ministry of Transportation during the Korean War when he was forcibly abducted by the People's Army on July 15, 1950. Mr. A got married to Ms. B in North Korea and died in September 1996.
Subsequently, Ms. B escaped from North Korea in October 2003 and entered South Korea. To receive a public employee survivor pension, Ms. B filed a claim for Mr. A's retirement pay in March of last year, but the Government Employees Pension Service rejected it, stating that Mr. A was not subject to the Government Employees Pension Act.
Ms. B filed a lawsuit in protest. She argued that Mr. A, who was abducted while performing his duties, had not been dismissed or removed but had lost the ability to perform his duties, thereby maintaining his status as a public employee when the Government Employees Pension Act was enacted and implemented in 1960. In contrast, the service claimed that Mr. A did not meet the conditions for employment and contribution payment.
The first trial ruled in favor of Ms. B. The court stated, "Mr. A was serving as a public employee at the time of his abduction, and there is no evidence to suggest that any reasons occurred that would automatically cause him to lose his public employee status afterwards."
The court also noted, "Although Mr. A was abducted before the enactment of the Government Employees Pension Act and did not make contributions, the act does not require contribution payments as a condition for receiving retirement pay," and added, "Once appointed as a public employee and having formed a public employment relationship, it cannot be said that he is not subject to the Government Employees Pension Act merely due to a lack of accumulated contributions."