Civil-service pension starting ages of 62–65 remain in place after 4–4 Constitutional Court split falls short of invalidation threshold
The Constitutional Court has left in place provisions setting the starting age for civil-service pension payments at 62–65, depending on the year of retirement. In its October 22 ruling in the consolidated cases 2024Hun-Ma990 and 2026Hun-Ba197, the justices split 4–4. Because the six votes needed to find the provisions unconstitutional or grant the constitutional complaint were not reached, the complaint was rejected and the provision challenged in the consolidated case remained constitutional. Describing the result as a majority of justices supporting constitutionality would misrepresent the distribution of opinions. Constitutional Court decision, pages 1 and 23
The provisions apply to people who meet the relevant retirement-year conditions among civil servants appointed between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2009, who were in service on January 1, 2016. They also cover people appointed in 2010 or later who have had qualifying service as civil servants, military personnel or private-school personnel credited in aggregate under the law. Pension payments begin at 62 for those retiring in 2024–2026, 63 for those retiring in 2027–2029, 64 for those retiring in 2030–2032, and 65 for those retiring in 2033 or later. This decision did not newly raise the pension starting age to 65 for all civil servants. Applicable provisions, decision pages 4–5
Justices Jeong Hyeong-sik, Kim Bok-hyeong, Cho Han-chang and Oh Young-jun favored rejecting the complaint and upholding the provisions. They considered the public interest in stabilizing pension finances, as well as the option of taking an early retirement pension. Justices Kim Hyeong-du, Jeong Jeong-mi, Jeong Gye-seon and Ma Eun-hyeok favored granting the complaint and finding the provisions unconstitutional, citing protection of legitimate expectations and property rights. The operative outcome leaving the provisions in place needs to be presented together with the two sets of opinions evaluating them. Decision, pages 13–23
Choosing an early retirement pension before the normal starting age comes with a reduction. The payment rates reproduced in the decision are 95%, 90%, 85%, 80% and 75%, depending on the number of years remaining until the starting age. The opinion favoring unconstitutionality noted that taking the pension five years early means a 25% reduction that applies throughout the pension payment period. That maximum reduction cannot be generalized to all civil servants or everyone who takes a pension early. Decision, pages 5 and 20–21
Justice Kim Hyeong-du’s supplementary opinion addressed the need to design rules that connect the mandatory retirement age with the start of pension payments. The issue is that a gap may remain even if the mandatory retirement age is extended, because the pension starting age is determined by the year of retirement. This was a justice’s view on legislative and institutional reform; it does not mean that this ruling put a retirement-age extension into effect. Supplementary opinion, decision pages 23–30
Eight participating justices are listed at the end of the decision. Reports including YTN state that Constitutional Court President Kim Sang-hwan did not take part because a law firm where his child works was representing a party. The full decision itself did not provide an official record establishing the reason for his recusal, so that explanation is attributed to the reporting. YTN, October 27
EEJE Editorial Analysis: This decision leaves the pension starting-age provisions in place. At the same time, half of the justices raised concerns about the waiting period before payments begin and an early-payment reduction that can last for life. For someone preparing to retire, the practical issue extends beyond the finding of constitutionality to how the date of appointment, retirement year and early-payment conditions determine when payments begin and how much they receive. The two opinions differed on whether the system could adequately address that gap. Comparison of the decision’s disposition and opinions