<Anchor>
Let me start with a meaningful court ruling that
our society should think about. One of the same-sex couples who had already married sued to allow the other to be listed as a dependent on their health insurance. I lost the first instance of that case, but today (21st) I won the second trial. The court explained that discriminatory treatment in health insurance because of being a minority in society violates the principle of equality.

First news, this is reporter Ha Jung-yeon.

<Reporter Ha Jung-yeon>

Soh Sung-wook and Kim Yong-min, who married in 2019, asked

the Kunbo Corporation if same-sex spouses could also qualify as health insurance dependents.

The industrial complex replied that it was possible and registered Mr. So as a dependent of Mr. Kim.

However, in October of that year, when their story became known in the media, the industrial complex suddenly changed Mr. So to a local subscriber and charged him a premium, claiming that it was a "mistake."

Mr. So filed an administrative lawsuit claiming that he denied his status as a dependent just because he was of the same sex, even though he was actually married.

Last year, the Court of First Instance rejected Mr. Soh's claim, saying, "The essence of marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and there is no basis for extending this to a union between a man and a woman."

However, the judgment of the Court of Second Instance was different.

First of all, the court used the term "same-sex union," saying that a common-law marriage between people of the same sex cannot be recognized as in the first instance.

However, it determined that "not recognizing dependents only for same-sex unions constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

They stated that since they are a common-law marriage between a man and a woman, except that they are of the same sex, denial of dependents is a violation of the principle of equality.

[Kim Yong-min/Soh Sung-wook's spouse: Same-sex couples are now reclaiming the language and rights they have not enjoyed and lost in the name of same-sex couples.]

LGBT groups and others called the ruling a forward-looking decision that paved the way for same-sex couples to be protected in the legal arena.

(Video Interview: Kim Seung-tae, Video Editing: Kim Jun-hee)

---

<anchor>
The
court explained that the ruling did not view same-sex couples as a couple or recognize their legal status. One of our social welfare systems, health insurance, recognizes the rights of same-sex couples.

Then, whether it can be expanded to other fields in the future, reporter Kang Min-woo weighed this part.

<Kang Min-woo>

This ruling starts from the fact that the requirement for dependents under the Health Insurance Act does not specify a "common-law partner."

The law interprets the scope of dependents more broadly than family members and does not discriminate based on sexual orientation, but unlike health insurance, the other four major insurances, such as national pension, workers' compensation insurance, and employment insurance, specify a "common-law partner" in the requirements for beneficiaries.

This means that same-sex couples must at least legally recognize common-law relationships before they can obtain other rights.

However, there are no cases in our country where same-sex couples have been recognized as common-law marriages, let alone legal marriages.

In 2016, the court ruled against Kim Jo Kwang-so and Kim Seung-hwan in a lawsuit against the district office for not accepting their marriage registration, and the Constitutional Court also stated that "marriage is the union of a man and a woman on the basis of affection and trust."

The legal profession notes that the ruling considers that "common-law groups" and "same-sex groups" are the same in terms of living communities.

[Professor Cha Sun-ja/Chonnam National University Law School: It means that it performs all the functions that are performed in a common-law marriage between people of the opposite sex, so it is correct to give social security benefits according to that function, and if it is not given, it can be seen as discrimination.]

Welfare or property-related rights disputes still have to be litigated individually, but there is a counterargument.

Even in the National Assembly, which holds the key to legislation, the Justice Party is moving to introduce the "Living Partnership Law," which allows cohabiting households, regardless of gender, to receive the same legal protection as existing family members.

(Video Interview: Kim Seung-tae, Video Editing: Yoon Tae-ho, CG: Ryu Sang-so) ---

<Anchor>
Let's talk more with reporter Ha Jung-yeon

, who covered this story
in court today (21st).

Q. "Discrimination will be abolished"... Timely in the ruling?

[Reporter Ha Jung-yeon: The court said that marriage between people of the same sex cannot be recognized under the current law, but wrote at the end of the ruling. "Existing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is gradually disappearing from the international community, and these remaining discriminations will one day be abolished," he said, adding, "Anyone can be a minority in some way, and belonging to a minority is different from the majority, but it may not be wrong or wrong." He also emphasized that protecting the rights of minorities is the greatest responsibility of the courts, the last bastion of human rights.]

Q. What are the cases of recognition of same-sex marriage overseas?

[JB: First of all, if you look at the example of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that "same-sex marriage is constitutional." This gives same-sex marriage legal status in all 50 states.. Two months earlier, a law enshrined in the U.S. House of Representatives enshrined the right to same-sex marriage. In the European Union, about half of the 27 member states recognize same-sex marriage, and the rest of the world have partnerships for same-sex couples and receive similar legal treatment to opposite-sex partners. And as of 2021, 29 UN member states recognize same-sex marriage.]