material photo.” alt=”View of the Constitutional Court. View of the Constitutional Court. <한겨레> Material photo.
In order to honor the national merit, the Constitutional Court decided that the provisions of the law requiring that only the first of the children of military policemen who died during the Korean War would infringe on the equal rights of other children. On the 25th, with the unanimous opinion of all judges, the Constitutional Court provided an allowance to the children of war and military police on the 25th day, and limited the beneficiary to one child, and the law on courtesy and support, such as former state merit, which gave priority to the elderly. Constitutional nonconformity was decided on the law on courtesy and support for persons of national merit and others. The provisions of the law will remain in effect only until December 31, next year, the deadline for revision of the law. In January 1949, the second son of the 6·25 military police officer A, who died in January 1949, along with his first son, was registered as a survivor of the military police in January 1962. After that, the first son received the allowance for the children of the 6/25 war military police from July 2001, but the second son did not receive the allowance. Accordingly, in July 2017, the second son filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Central District Law for the payment of child allowance for the 6/25 warlords, and filed a request for a trial for unconstitutional law in the court. In February 2018, the court proposed a trial for unconstitutional law, stating, “The provisions of the law infringe on the right to equality.” The Constitution said, “In the case of the state paying allowances to children of 6·25 war-torn military officers who are survivors of national merit, the number of beneficiaries is limited to one of the children without a reasonable reason, and there are no exceptions to increase the number of beneficiaries.” It violates the constitution by discriminating against the older and lesser-than-older children of the 6·25 war soldiers without a reasonable reason, violating the equal rights of the children of the 6·25 war soldiers who were younger.” “Even though the total amount of allowances is inevitably limited to a certain amount due to the state’s financial burden, if the allowances are properly divided according to the level of life of the children of the 6/25 war soldiers, it is unreasonable to be paid to only one person while maintaining the purpose of payment. Can be solved.” Regarding the assertion of the Ministry of Veterans Affairs, that “the older it is, the more difficult it is to obtain income through economic activities, and that the elders mostly manage rituals and mausoleums and take responsibility for family livelihoods.” After marriage, there are not many cases of financial dependence, so it is difficult to expect an elderly child to support other younger children, and the cult culture is also changing.” By Jo Yoon-young, staff reporter