Court Recognizing Health Insurance Eligibility for Same-Sex Spouses Says "Remaining Discrimination Will Eventually Be Abolished" (Comprehensive)

Second Trial Highlights the 'Principle of Equality'
Overturns First Trial, Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Couples
"Health Insurance Eligibility Assessment Differs Only by Sexual Orientation"

"Anyone can be a minority in some aspect. Belonging to a minority simply means being different from the majority, and it is not inherently wrong or incorrect. In societies governed by the principle of majority rule, awareness of minority rights and efforts to protect them are necessary. This is also the greatest responsibility of the courts, the last bastion of human rights."(Seoul High Court, Administrative Division 1-3)

A same-sex couple married for five years won an appeal lawsuit seeking recognition of dependent status under health insurance. The court ruled that "depriving the dependent status of a same-sex partner without reasonable grounds, while recognizing it for common-law spouses, violates the 'principle of equality.'"

Sung Sowook and Kim Yongmin, a same-sex couple who filed a lawsuit against the National Health Insurance Service for recognition of dependent qualification under health insurance [Photo by Yonhap News]

◆Court: "NHIS treated common-law spouses differently from same-sex partners... discrimination without reasonable grounds"

On the morning of the 21st, Seoul High Court Administrative Division 1-3 (Presiding Judges Lee Seunghan, Shim Junbo, Kim Jongho) overturned the first trial ruling and ruled in favor of So Seongwook (32), the same-sex partner of Kim Yongmin (33), in the appeal lawsuit against the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) seeking cancellation of the insurance premium imposition. The court stated, "The insurance premium imposition against So by NHIS is illegal and must be canceled. The defendant shall bear all litigation costs."

On this day, the court found it difficult to recognize the common-law marriage of the couple under the Constitution, Civil Act, and precedents. However, it stated, "NHIS recognizes dependent status only for common-law spouses in heterosexual relationships but not for same-sex partners, which constitutes discriminatory treatment against essentially the same group based on sexual orientation."

The court explained, "Under the administrative law principle of equality, administrative agencies have the obligation to treat all citizens equally unless there is a reasonable reason. NHIS has treated 'common-law spouses' as included in the 'spouse' category of workplace subscribers since the enactment of the National Health Insurance Act through work guidelines. Currently, there are no restrictions on recognizing common-law spouses as dependents."

Furthermore, "Even if NHIS's claim that the comparison standard between the two groups is based on family system and support obligations is accepted, both common-law spouses and same-sex partners are emotional and economic communities of life that are not included in legal family relationships or support obligations. Therefore, they cannot be considered different in this regard," adding "they can be evaluated as essentially the same group, differing only in whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual."

Additionally, regarding NHIS, "They only repeat the claim that common-law spouses and same-sex partners are essentially different, without specific claims or evidence justifying the discriminatory treatment in this case," and "Since there is no explanation for a reasonable reason to treat the two groups differently, this discriminatory treatment is recognized as arbitrary discrimination violating the principle of equality," the court added.

Moreover, the court briefly added its view on whether any discrimination can be justified based on 'sexual orientation,' stating the following.

"It cannot be denied that explicit and implicit discrimination against sexual orientation minorities has existed worldwide, including in our country, from past to present. However, our country clearly states in Article 3 of the National Human Rights Commission Act that discrimination based on sexual orientation is one of the typical types of equality rights violations, making sexual orientation an unacceptable reason for discrimination even in judicial relations. In areas governing public law relations, including social security systems, discrimination based on sexual orientation has no place."

It further emphasized.

"Sexual orientation is an innate nature, not a choice. Awareness is spreading that there is no reason to discriminate in evaluations of personality, emotions, intelligence, ability, behavior, or any other aspect of human life based on this. Accordingly, existing discrimination based on sexual orientation is gradually disappearing internationally, and remaining discrimination will eventually be abolished."

◆Couple married in 2019... winning the appeal

So far, the appellate court has focused on the 'principle of equality,' unlike the first trial, during the proceedings. It focused on the fact that NHIS recognizes dependent status for common-law spouses of workplace subscribers but not for same-sex partners, thereby treating the two groups differently.

NHIS argued, "According to our country's Civil Act system and precedents, the concept of marriage itself presupposes a heterosexual relationship," and claimed that they cannot be considered in a common-law relationship. They also mentioned, "Although new forms of living communities have recently formed, their protection is a legislative and policy issue to be resolved through social consensus."

Park Hanhee, a lawyer from Hope Making Law representing So, emphasized, "So and Kim have held a wedding ceremony and live together while interacting with their families. Since this is essentially no different from heterosexual marriage, the treatment in this case is discriminatory and violates the right to equality."

Kim, So's spouse, who received the favorable ruling, said, "Today, our status has been recognized within the judicial system," and "This is a victory for everyone who hopes for an equal society for same-sex couples." Lawyer Park explained, "This ruling is the first case in which the court has recognized the legal status of same-sex couples."

So and Kim first met in 2012 and began dating the following year. They agreed to live together as partners and cohabited from 2017. In May 2019, they publicly held a 'wedding ceremony' with both families and relatives.

Although not legally recognized as married, So was registered as a dependent of Kim, a workplace subscriber to health insurance, from February 2020. NHIS had also guided that registration is possible in cases of common-law relationships.

However, after their story was reported, NHIS converted So to a regional health insurance subscriber in October of the same year, stating, "They do not meet the conditions for dependent recognition," and imposed insurance premiums. Disagreeing with this, So filed a lawsuit in February 2021 seeking cancellation of the unfair insurance premium claim.

The first trial rejected So's claim, stating, "Under the current legal system, it is difficult to evaluate this as a same-sex common-law marriage." It added, "'Marriage' fundamentally involves the union of a man and a woman, as seen in Supreme Court and Constitutional Court precedents and general social perception. There is no basis to extend this to same-sex unions." It also stated, "The imposition is an administrative discretionary guideline unrelated to the principle of equality," and "Since same-sex unions cannot be considered essentially the same as heterosexual unions, treating them differently does not violate the constitutional principle of equality."

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