Husband Dies During Divorce Proceedings: "Unjust to Demand Treatment Costs from Legal Heir"

Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Recommends Cancellation of Recourse Payment
"Cancellation Necessary as It Contradicts the Purpose of the Social Safety Net"

In a case where a husband, who was undergoing divorce proceedings, inflicted serious injuries on his son and subsequently died, it was determined that it was unreasonable for the National Health Insurance Service to exercise its right of recourse against the wife simply because she was the husband's legal heir.

On July 21, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission announced that it had issued an opinion to the National Health Insurance Service, recommending cancellation of the recourse payment notification sent to Ms. A, who had received notice to pay treatment costs for her son on the grounds that she was the legal heir of her deceased husband.

Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, Government Complex Sejong. Photo by Hyunmin Kim

The incident occurred while Ms. A was in the midst of divorce proceedings with her spouse, Mr. B. Mr. B inflicted severe injuries on their son and then passed away. Although the National Health Insurance Service should have exercised its right of recourse against Mr. B for the expenses incurred during the son's treatment, it instead pursued recourse against Ms. A, Mr. B's legal heir and spouse, due to Mr. B’s death.

Ms. A subsequently filed a grievance with the Commission. She stated, "After the first trial verdict, Mr. B passed away. I believed that the divorce was finalized and therefore did not renounce the inheritance. While I may be the perpetrator's legal heir, I must also care for my son, who is the victim, so requiring me to pay the treatment costs is extremely harsh."

The Commission’s investigation concluded that the exercise of recourse rights by the National Health Insurance Service was inconsistent with the purpose of the health insurance system. The Commission focused on the fact that, while Ms. A is in a position to bear civil liability as the perpetrator's legal heir, she is also the mother of the victim and shares in the benefits of insurance enrollment with her son. The Commission explained that, if the National Health Insurance Service’s recourse was recognized, it would deprive both the victimized son and Ms. A of the benefits of being insured, ultimately creating the same outcome as if they had not been insured at all.

The Commission further noted that Ms. A should not be held entirely responsible for not renouncing the inheritance. The local government sent Ms. A guidance notices on the assumption that the divorce was finalized, and the district court repeatedly issued certificates attesting that the trial verdict was confirmed—circumstances that could reasonably have led Ms. A to believe the divorce had been finalized.

Min Seong-sim, Director of the Grievance Redress Bureau at the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, stated, "The national health insurance system is the most fundamental social safety net provided by the national community to its citizens. It is unreasonable to interpret the regulations in a way that disadvantages beneficiaries merely for the sake of securing or conserving insurance funds."

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