On Paper Broken, But Still Married: Court Rules Pension Must Be Split Across Full Marriage Period

By Juwon Kang, April 22, 2026

A South Korean administrative court has ruled that merely acknowledging a marital breakdown in divorce documents is not enough to reduce a former spouse’s share of a military pension — not without an explicit written agreement saying so. Here are the key points:

—

The Background

– Plaintiff A, a retired military officer, divorced his first wife B, then remarried her (legally registering the union a second time), and divorced her again.
– The divorce mediation record stated that the military pension would be divided according to the Military Pension Act, and also acknowledged that the marriage had “broken down from the year 2000.”
– Based on B’s application, the pension authority calculated her share using the combined marriage duration of both the first and second marriages — totaling 21 years and 3 months.
– A objected, arguing that since the marriage was already broken down from 2000 as stated in the record, the second marriage period should be excluded from the pension calculation.

What the Court Decided

– The Seoul Administrative Court (Division 3, Presiding Judge Choi Su-jin) ruled against A on January 23, 2026, upholding the pension authority’s refusal to recalculate the split.
– The court held that for pension division to deviate from the default statutory formula, there must be a clear and explicit agreement between the parties — or a court order — specifying a different ratio or excluding certain periods. No such agreement existed in the mediation record.
– Without that explicit agreement, the court said it cannot simply be assumed that a divorced spouse gave up her pension rights or consented to a less favorable split.

On the “Breakdown” Argument

– A insisted that the second marriage was a marriage in name only, with no real marital life. The court was unconvinced.
– Evidence showed that during the second marriage period, A and B shared the same registered address for a portion of the time and were jointly involved in raising their grandchildren — indicating ongoing, substantive interaction.
– The court found this sufficient to recognize a real marital relationship during the second marriage period.



Why This Matters

This ruling sends a clear signal to practitioners drafting divorce agreements: if a client wants to limit a former spouse’s pension entitlement — whether by adjusting the split ratio or carving out certain periods — that intention must be spelled out explicitly in the settlement document. Vague references to marital breakdown, without more, will not do the job.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=218458