According to the National Pension Research Institute's latest report, the overwhelming majority of split pension recipients are women, showing that their degree of economic independence determines their quality of life after divorce. As divorce at twilight becomes more common, the proportion of couples who have been married for more than 20 years splitting up has increased to over 36%, and as a result, there is a growing demand for spouses who have devoted themselves to domestic labor in the past to be fairly compensated for their contributions. However, the current National Pension Act is designed to allow division only when the former spouse receives the old-age pension, so there is a structural loophole. As a result, a serious inequality is occurring in which if a divorced spouse chooses a lump sum instead of a pension or loses his or her entitlement to receiving the pension, the other party loses his or her entire right to receive the pension without any measures being taken.

The blind spot of the system is much broader and more specific than you might think. If the ex-spouse emigrates, dies, or receives a lump sum refund while the subscription period is less than 10 years, an absurd situation arises in which the rights themselves are extinguished even if the divorced partner had applied for division in advance. In fact, hundreds of thousands of lump sum refund recipients receive lump sums ranging from millions to hundreds of millions of won, but in the process, the consent of their ex-spouse or rights relief procedures are not taken into consideration at all. This is a fatal blow to the vulnerable class who need to be protected from economic risks even after divorce, and is fading the value of retirement income security that the pension system should aim for.

Experts strongly recommend the introduction of the ‘lump sum installment’ system to overcome these equity issues. The civil service pension and private school teacher pension have already been operating this system since 2018 to prevent lump sum monopolies. As a specific alternative, a safety measure was proposed that would allow for immediate division of the lump sum refund if the marriage lasted more than 5 years and divorced before the former spouse claimed the lump sum refund. However, in order to prevent administrative inefficiencies and excessive notarization costs, a realistic compromise is also being discussed to increase the effectiveness of the system by setting a lower limit that allows division only for amounts exceeding 5 million won.

It may be natural that 'fear of property division' has become a hot topic among singles who are considering remarriage. There is also a stark difference in perception in the remarriage market, with men feeling financial fears about their assets being divided in the event of divorce, and women wanting to maintain the sense of freedom they gained after independence. In this social atmosphere, pension issues go beyond simple legal disputes and serve as the biggest uncertainty in planning life after divorce. Therefore, in the future, it is essential to fundamentally improve the structure of the 'subscription history division system', which goes beyond simply post-mortem pension division and immediately divides subscription history and income records equally at the time of divorce.