Lawsuit Over Health Insurance Eligibility for Same-Sex Couples Lost... Court Rules "De Facto Marriage Not Recognized"

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] A same-sex couple who were stripped of their spouse’s health insurance dependent status because they are of the same sex filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the disposition, but it was not accepted.

The Seoul Administrative Court, Administrative Division 6 (Presiding Judge Juyoung Lee), on the 7th, ruled against the plaintiff in the case where the same-sex couple, Mr. So, filed a lawsuit against the National Health Insurance Corporation seeking cancellation of the imposition of insurance premiums. The court stated, "Under the current legal system, it is difficult to recognize the relationship of the same-sex couple, Mr. So and his partner, as a de facto marriage," and added, "The imposition of insurance premiums is lawful." It held that under current law, a cohabiting community between same-sex couples, who cannot legally register their marriage, cannot be regarded as a de facto marriage.

The court said, "'Marriage,' according to precedents from the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, as well as general societal understanding, is still fundamentally based on the union of a man and a woman," and "there is no basis to interpret it as extending to same-sex unions." It further explained, "The imposition of premiums is an administrative discretionary guideline and is unrelated to the principle of equality," and "Since same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions cannot be considered essentially the same, treating them differently does not violate the constitutional principle of equality."

Earlier, Mr. So had lived with his same-sex partner, Mr. Kim, since 2017 and held a wedding ceremony in May 2019. Although not legally recognized as a married couple, Mr. So was registered as a dependent of Mr. Kim, who is a workplace health insurance subscriber, from February 2020. However, in October of the same year, the National Health Insurance Corporation converted Mr. So to a regional health insurance subscriber, stating that he did not meet the conditions for dependent recognition, and imposed insurance premiums. Mr. So filed a lawsuit challenging this disposition.

Mr. So’s side argued, "In the area of social security, which aims to guarantee a dignified life, the scope of de facto marriage can be interpreted more broadly than recognized under the Civil Act." However, the court rejected this, stating, "In the area of social security, de facto marriages that contradict the existing marriage law order are, in principle, not protected." It added, "It is difficult to see any special circumstances that would exclude the public interest request to maintain the marriage legal order simply because a regional health insurance subscriber has the obligation to pay minimum insurance premiums."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.