Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Abandonment clause and division of a public official's pension
Supreme Court, Nov. 30, 2023, 2022Du62284 (judgment)
Case name: 분할연금·일시금지급선청구승인처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a mediation agreement or court document in a divorce property division does not state the sharing ratio for the other spouse's retirement pension but carries the words 'the remaining claims are abandoned', does that show an agreement by the divorced spouse to waive the right to a divided pension, or to consent to a sharing ratio unfavourable to that spouse, under Article 46 of the former Public Officials Pension Act, and may part only of the pension be divided by agreement?
Holding
It may, but only on limited conditions. Where the divorced spouse ascertained the other's pension details through a fact inquiry, included them in the other's active assets, and the existence and estimated amount of the pension were sufficiently taken into account in the property division up to the mediation or settlement, the pension is treated as having been reflected in the agreed or settled amount, and the abandonment clause means the right to a divided pension was waived for that part. The parties may also agree to divide part only of the retirement pension: the special provision of Article 46 governs the part taken as the subject of division, Article 45(2) governs the rest, and Article 49(3) applies the same rule to a lump sum.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
구 공무원연금법(2019. 12. 31. 법률 제16851호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제46조(이하 ‘특례조항’이라 한다)에서 정한 ‘연금분할이 별도로 결정된 경우’라고 보기 위해서는, 협의상 또는 재판상 이혼에 따른 재산분할절차에서 이혼당사자 사이에 퇴직연금의 분할 비율 등을 달리 정하기로 하는 명시적인 합의가 있었거나 법원이 이를 달리 결정하였음이 분명히 드러나야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In order for a case to be regarded as one 'where the pension division has been separately determined' as provided in Article 46 (hereinafter referred to as the 'special provision') of the former Public Officials Pension Act (the one prior to its amendment by Act No. 16851 on December 31, 2019; hereinafter the same), it must be clearly revealed that, in the property division procedure under a divorce by agreement or a divorce by judicial decision, there was an explicit agreement between the parties to the divorce to determine the ratio of division of the retirement pension or the like differently, or that the court determined it differently.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
구 공무원연금법(2019. 12. 31. 법률 제16851호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제46조(이하 ‘특례조항’이라 한다)에서 정한 ‘연금분할이 별도로 결정된 경우’라고 보기 위해서는
Unofficial English translation
In order for a case to be regarded as one 'where the pension division has been separately determined' as provided in Article 46 (hereinafter referred to as the 'special provision') of the former Public Officials Pension Act (the one prior to its amendment by Act No. 16851 on December 31, 2019; hereinafter the same),
Factors
- 명시적인 합의가 있었거나 법원이 이를 달리 결정하였음이 분명히 드러나야 한다
- 퇴직연금의 분할 비율 등이 명시되지 않은 경우에는
- 상대방의 퇴직연금 내역을 구체적으로 파악하여 이를 상대방의 적극재산에 포함하고
- 상대방의 퇴직연금의 존부, 추정액 등이 협의 내지 조정에 이르기까지의 재산분할절차에서 충분히 고려된 사정이 확인된다면
- 이혼당사자 사이의 협의 내지 조정으로 퇴직연금 중 일부에 대한 분할도 가능하다
Unofficial English translation
• it must be clearly revealed that there was an explicit agreement or that the court determined it differently
• where the ratio of division of the retirement pension or the like is not specified,
• specifically ascertained the details of the other party's retirement pension and included them in the other party's active assets, and
• if it is confirmed that the existence or nonexistence of the other party's retirement pension, the estimated amount thereof, and the like were sufficiently taken into consideration in the property division procedure up to the agreement or mediation,
• division of part of a retirement pension is also possible by agreement or mediation between the parties to the divorce
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2019. 6. 13. 선고 2018두65088 판결(공2019하, 1397)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2018Du65088 decided June 13, 2019 (Gong 2019 Ha, 1397)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2019. 6. 13. 선고 2018두65088 판결(공2019하, 1397)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the settlement is silent on the pension and the record does not show that it was included in the active assets, what evidence other than the abandonment clause can establish the scope of the waiver?
A later decision on what shows that a pension was reflected in a settled amount, or on how the scope of a waiver is measured where only part of the retirement pay was excluded, would call for this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Articles 45, 46 or 49 of the former Public Officials Pension Act, or a change in the rules on the advance claim for a divided pension and lump sum, would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 13 October 2022 (2021Nu62142), held that including the abandonment clause in the settlement alone did not show that the sharing ratio and the like had been separately agreed between the plaintiff and the former spouse under Article 46 of the former Public Officials Pension Act. On that basis it held that the disposition of 20 December 2019 approving the former spouse's advance claim for the divided pension and lump sum was lawful.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below should have examined, in light of the fact that the settlement included the abandonment clause, the scope of the retirement pay for which the former spouse waived the right to a divided pension under Articles 45 and 49, and only then decided which part of the disposition was unlawful. The former spouse ascertained the expected retirement pay through a fact inquiry, included all but the part corresponding to ten years of service in the plaintiff's active assets, and had that spouse's share fixed on that premise, so that spouse was likely to have waived the divided-pension right for that remaining part. The court below, by holding only that no separate agreement covered the whole of the retirement pay and leaving the rest undiscussed, misread the special provision and Articles 45 and 49 and did not carry out the necessary examination, so the whole judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the record does not show that the divorced spouse ascertained the other's pension details and included them in the other's active assets, so that the pension cannot be treated as reflected in the agreed or settled amount.
- A case in which the court itself decided a different sharing ratio for the pension, which the special provision of Article 46 covers directly.
- A claim for the part of the retirement pay for which the spouse did not waive the divided-pension right, to which Article 45(2), or Article 49(3) with Article 45(2), applies.
Record verification notes
Set the settlement record against three matters before relying on this entry: whether the spouse ascertained the expected retirement pay through a fact inquiry, whether that figure was placed in the other spouse's active assets, and whether it was sufficiently considered up to the settlement. Then isolate the part of the retirement pay for which no waiver can be shown, since only that part may still be divided under Article 45(2), or Article 49(3) with Article 45(2). The decision applied the former Public Officials Pension Act before its amendment by Act No. 16851 of 31 December 2019, so confirm the version in force at the time of the disposition, along with the requirements of Article 45(1).
From the official text
Points at issue
이혼당사자 사이의 협의서나 조정조서 등을 포함한 재판서에 퇴직연금의 분할 비율 등이 명시되지는 않았으나 ‘나머지 청구를 포기한다.’라는 문언이 기재된 경우, 이혼배우자가 자신의 분할연금 수급권을 포기하거나 자신에게 불리한 분할 비율 설정에 동의하는 합의가 있었다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(한정 적극) / 이혼당사자 사이의 협의 내지 조정으로 퇴직연금 중 일부에 대한 분할이 가능한지 여부(적극) / 퇴직연금의 분할에 관한 위와 같은 법리가 퇴직연금일시금 등의 분할에도 그대로 적용되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where, in a court record including a written agreement or a mediation record between the parties to a divorce, the ratio of division of the retirement pension or the like is not specified, but the wording 'the remaining claims are abandoned' is stated, whether it can be regarded as an agreement in which the divorced spouse abandoned his/her right to receive a divided pension or consented to the setting of a division ratio unfavorable to him/her (limited affirmative) / Whether division of part of a retirement pension is possible by agreement or mediation between the parties to a divorce (affirmative) / Whether the foregoing legal principle concerning the division of a retirement pension applies equally to the division of lump-sum retirement benefits and the like (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
구 공무원연금법(2019. 12. 31. 법률 제16851호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제46조(이하 ‘특례조항’이라 한다)에서 정한 ‘연금분할이 별도로 결정된 경우’라고 보기 위해서는, 협의상 또는 재판상 이혼에 따른 재산분할절차에서 이혼당사자 사이에 퇴직연금의 분할 비율 등을 달리 정하기로 하는 명시적인 합의가 있었거나 법원이 이를 달리 결정하였음이 분명히 드러나야 한다. 이와 달리 이혼당사자 사이의 협의서나 조정조서 등을 포함한 재판서에 퇴직연금의 분할 비율 등이 명시되지 않은 경우에는, 재산분할절차에서 이혼배우자가 자신의 분할연금 수급권을 포기하거나 자신에게 불리한 분할 비율 설정에 동의하는 합의가 있었다거나 그러한 내용의 법원 심판이 있었다고 쉽게 단정해서는 아니 된다. 다만 이혼당사자 사이의 협의서나 조정조서 등을 포함한 재판서에 퇴직연금의 분할 비율 등이 명시되지 않더라도 이혼배우자가 협의상 또는 재판상 이혼에 따른 재산분할절차에서 상대방의 퇴직연금 내역을 구체적으로 파악하여 이를 상대방의 적극재산에 포함하고, 상대방의 퇴직연금의 존부, 추정액 등이 협의 내지 조정에 이르기까지의 재산분할절차에서 충분히 고려된 사정이 확인된다면, 퇴직연금이 이혼당사자 사이의 협의액 내지 조정액의 결정 등에 반영되었다고 보는 것이 타당하다. 따라서 그 협의서나 조정조서 등을 포함한 재판서에 ‘나머지 청구를 포기한다.’라는 문언이 기재되어 있다면 이혼배우자가 자신의 분할연금 수급권을 포기하거나 자신에게 불리한 분할 비율 설정에 동의하는 합의가 있었다고 볼 것이다. 한편 협의상 또는 재판상 이혼에 따른 재산분할절차에서 이혼당사자 사이의 협의 내지 조정으로 퇴직연금 중 일부에 대한 분할도 가능하다. 이혼당사자 사이의 협의 내지 조정에서 분할대상으로 삼은 퇴직연금 부분에 대해서는 위 특례조항이 적용되고, 나머지 퇴직연금 부분에 대해서는 구 공무원연금법 제45조 제2항이 적용된다. 그리고 구 공무원연금법 제49조 제3항은 일시금의 분할에 관하여 구 공무원연금법 제45조 제2항, 위 특례조항을 준용하므로, 퇴직연금의 분할에 관한 위와 같은 법리는 퇴직연금일시금 등의 분할에도 그대로 적용된다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
구 공무원연금법(2019. 12. 31. 법률 제16851호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제45조 제1항, 제2항, 제46조, 제49조 제1항, 제3항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger