Open Decision Ledger · Military criminal & justice law
Starting point of limitation for a military death benefit claim under the former rules
Supreme Court, Apr. 2, 2026, 2024Du43706 (judgment)
Case name: 군인사망보상금지급불가결정처분취소[군인사망보상급여금의 소멸시효 기산점이 문제 된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What does 'the day on which the ground for payment occurred' in Article 2 of the former Regulation on Military Death Benefit mean, and does Article 2 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1086 of 2 September 1955 apply to a claim arising under Article 1 of the former Regulation whose limitation had not yet completed when the amended Article 2 took effect?
Holding
The phrase is not read literally. Where the survivor knew at the time of death that the ground for payment had occurred, the period runs from then; where objectively there were circumstances in which the survivor could not confirm that the ground had occurred, it runs from when the survivor knew or could have known. Reading the words as they stand would offend justice and equity, the constitutional guarantee of property, the principle of equality and the purpose of limitation itself. The 1955 amendment, which moved the starting point to the date the survivor received the death notice, was a corrective measure aimed at inequality, and is a non-genuine retroactive statute directed at factual and legal relations still in progress, so it applies to any claim whose limitation had not completed when it took effect on 2 September 1955.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
구 군인사망급여금규정 제2조의 ‘그 지급사유가 발생한 날’로부터의 의미는 유족이 군인 등의 사망 당시 그 지급사유 발생 사실을 안 때에는 그때부터 소멸시효가 진행하고, 객관적으로 보아 유족이 군인사망급여금의 지급사유가 발생한 사실을 확인할 수 없는 사정이 있는 경우에는 유족이 그 지급사유의 발생을 알았거나 알 수 있었던 때부터 소멸시효가 진행한다는 의미로 해석해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The meaning of 'from the day on which the cause for payment arises' in Article 2 of the former Military Death Gratuity Payment Regulation must be construed to mean that, where the survivor knew of the occurrence of the cause for payment at the time of the death of the servicemember or the like, the extinctive prescription runs from that time, and that, where there are circumstances under which, viewed objectively, the survivor cannot ascertain the fact that the cause for payment of the military death gratuity has arisen, the extinctive prescription runs from the time when the survivor knew or could have known of the occurrence of the cause for payment.
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
따라서 구 군인사망급여금규정 제1조에 따라 발생한 군인사망급여금 청구권의 소멸시효가 개정 규정 제2조의 시행 당시 완성되지 않은 경우, 그 소멸시효에 관하여는 개정 규정 제2조가 적용된다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, where the extinctive prescription of the claim for a military death gratuity arising under Article 1 of the former Military Death Gratuity Payment Regulation had not yet been completed as at the time the amended Article 2 came into force, the amended Article 2 applies to such extinctive prescription.
Factors
- 유족이 과실 없이 그 지급사유의 발생을 알 수 없었던 경우에도
- 정의와 형평에 맞지 않을 뿐만 아니라 헌법상 재산권 보장이나 평등의 원칙, 소멸시효 제도의 존재이유에도 부합한다고 할 수 없다
- 객관적으로 보아 유족이 군인사망급여금의 지급사유가 발생한 사실을 확인할 수 없는 사정이 있는 경우에는
- 현재 진행 중인 사실관계나 법률관계를 대상으로 하는 부진정소급입법에 해당한다고 보아야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• even where the survivor, without negligence, could not have known of the occurrence of the cause for payment,
• it is not only contrary to justice and equity but also cannot be regarded as consistent with the constitutional guarantee of property rights, the principle of equality, or the *raison d'être* of the system of extinctive prescription
• where there are circumstances under which, viewed objectively, the survivor cannot ascertain the fact that the cause for payment of the military death gratuity has arisen,
• it must be regarded as imperfectly retroactive legislation directed at facts and legal relationships currently in progress
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What must the record show before the survivor is held to have known, or to have been able to know, that the ground for the payment had occurred?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court will show what the survivor must produce on the date of the notice and on when the ground could be confirmed. Any later decision on limitation under the current Act on Compensation and Support for Military Personnel, whose Article 1, Article 39 and Article 49(1) are cited as the current counterparts, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 17 May 2024 (2024Nu32463), accepted that the plaintiff had a claim to the military death benefit under Article 1 of the former Regulation. Taking it that the plaintiff was unable to exercise the claim from the death on 6 August 1950, it held that the plaintiff could exercise it by 3 January 1963, when the death was registered, or at the latest by 31 March 1998, when the Army determined the death to be in battle, and that the five-year period had therefore run.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that nothing in the record showed that the plaintiff knew or could have known of the ground for payment between 6 August 1950 and 2 September 1955, so the limitation had not completed by the effective date of the amended Article 2, and the amended Article 2 had to govern the starting point. It found that the court below overlooked this and never examined when the plaintiff received the death notice or an equivalent notice, or learned or could have learned that the ground had occurred. That was a misreading of the law on the starting point of limitation which left necessary examination undone and affected the judgment, so the judgment was reversed and remanded by unanimous agreement.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the survivor knew, at the time of the soldier's death, that the ground for payment had occurred, since the period then runs from that time.
- A claim whose limitation had already completed when the amended Article 2 took effect on 2 September 1955, since the Court applied the amended provision only where it had not completed.
- A claim to which Article 1 of the former Regulation does not apply, such as a death that is not a death in battle or a death in military service without serious fault.
Record verification notes
Establish first which version of the Regulation governs, since the 1953 amendment was applied retroactively to 25 June 1950 and the rules were wholly rewritten on 23 March 1970. Then fix the date on which the survivor received the death notice or an equivalent notice, or learned or could have learned that the ground for payment had occurred, because that date is the starting point once the amended Article 2 applies. Finally check that the five-year period had not already completed on 2 September 1955.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 군인사망급여금규정 제2조의 ‘그 지급사유가 발생한 날’로부터의 의미 [2] 1955. 9. 2. 대통령령 제1086호로 개정된 군인사망급여금규정 제2조의 개정 취지 및 구 군인사망급여금규정 제1조에 따라 발생한 군인사망급여금 청구권의 소멸시효가 개정 군인사망급여금규정 제2조의 시행 당시 완성되지 않은 경우, 그 소멸시효에 관하여 개정 군인사망급여금규정 제2조가 적용되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Meaning of 'from the day on which the cause for payment arises' in Article 2 of the former Military Death Gratuity Payment Regulation [2] Purport of the amendment to Article 2 of the Military Death Gratuity Payment Regulation amended by Presidential Decree No. 1086 on September 2, 1955, and where the extinctive prescription of the claim for a military death gratuity arising under Article 1 of the former Military Death Gratuity Payment Regulation had not yet been completed as at the time the amended Article 2 of the Military Death Gratuity Payment Regulation came into force, whether the amended Article 2 of the Military Death Gratuity Payment Regulation applies to such extinctive prescription (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 군인사망급여금규정(1955. 9. 2. 대통령령 제1086호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제1조에 따른 군인사망급여금은 군인 등이 전사 등으로 사망한 때 지급되는 것으로서, 유족은 그러한 지급사유가 발생한 때 군인사망급여금 청구권을 취득한다. 원칙적으로 소멸시효는 권리를 행사할 수 있는 때로부터 진행하는 것인데(민법 제166조 제1항), 군인사망급여금의 지급사유가 발생했는지가 객관적으로 분명하지 아니하여 유족이 과실 없이 그 지급사유의 발생을 알 수 없었던 경우에도, 구 군인사망급여금규정 제2조를 문언 그대로만 해석하여 지급사유가 발생한 날부터 소멸시효가 진행한다고 보는 것은 정의와 형평에 맞지 않을 뿐만 아니라 헌법상 재산권 보장이나 평등의 원칙, 소멸시효 제도의 존재이유에도 부합한다고 할 수 없다. 따라서 구 군인사망급여금규정 제2조의 ‘그 지급사유가 발생한 날’로부터의 의미는 유족이 군인 등의 사망 당시 그 지급사유 발생 사실을 안 때에는 그때부터 소멸시효가 진행하고, 객관적으로 보아 유족이 군인사망급여금의 지급사유가 발생한 사실을 확인할 수 없는 사정이 있는 경우에는 유족이 그 지급사유의 발생을 알았거나 알 수 있었던 때부터 소멸시효가 진행한다는 의미로 해석해야 한다. [2] 1955. 9. 2. 대통령령 제1086호로 개정된 군인사망급여금규정(이하 ‘개정 규정’이라 한다) 제2조의 개정 취지는, 6·25 전쟁이라는 특수한 상황에서 군인이 전사로 사망하더라도 유족으로서는 국가가 사망통지서 등을 통해서 그러한 사실을 객관적으로 확인하여 주지 않는 한 그 군인의 사망 여부 및 사유를 정확히 알기 어려운데도, 구 군인사망급여금규정(1955. 9. 2. 대통령령 제1086호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제2조에서 전사 등 군인사망급여금의 지급사유가 발생한 날을 일괄적으로 소멸시효의 기산점으로 삼는 것은 그 자체로 부당하거나 불합리한 결과를 피할 수 없기 때문이다. 이러한 개정은 불평등 등을 시정하려는 반성적 고려의 결과이고, 이로써 군인사망급여금 청구권의 소멸시효 기산점은 유족이 국가로부터 사망통지서를 받아 군인사망급여금의 지급사유가 발생한 사실을 알았거나 알 수 있게 된 때가 되었다. 나아가 위와 같은 입법 연혁 및 취지 등에 비추어 보면, 개정 규정이 부칙에서 과거의 사실관계나 법률관계에도 적용되는지 명시하고 있지는 않지만, 개정 규정 제2조는 현재 진행 중인 사실관계나 법률관계를 대상으로 하는 부진정소급입법에 해당한다고 보아야 한다. 따라서 구 군인사망급여금규정 제1조에 따라 발생한 군인사망급여금 청구권의 소멸시효가 개정 규정 제2조의 시행 당시 완성되지 않은 경우, 그 소멸시효에 관하여는 개정 규정 제2조가 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
[1] 구 군인사망급여금규정(1955. 9. 2. 대통령령 제1086호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제1조(현행 군인 재해보상법 제1조 참조), 제2조(현행 군인 재해보상법 제39조, 제49조 제1항 참조), 민법 제166조 제1항 / [2] 구 군인사망급여금규정(1955. 9. 2. 대통령령 제1086호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제1조(현행 군인 재해보상법 제1조 참조), 제2조(현행 군인 재해보상법 제39조, 제49조 제1항 참조), 구 군인사망급여금규정(1970. 3. 23. 대통령령 제4775호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조(현행 군인 재해보상법 제39조, 제49조 제1항 참조), 부칙(1951. 2. 28.), 부칙(1953. 11. 10.)
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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