“There should be no discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

A sentence stuck in the same-sex couple So Sung-wook and Kim Yong-min, who anxiously waited for the ruling in the Supreme Court's Supreme Court on July 18, was the one containing the word "discrimination." The Supreme Court's ruling on the couple's eligibility to qualify as dependents for health insurance means that same-sex couples will be granted legal status in the public system without discrimination. This paves the way for same-sex couples who are not legally married to be protected by the social security system.

The Supreme Court ruled that So and Kim formed a “living community,” just like a common-law relationship. Nevertheless, it stated that not granting the status of dependent on the grounds of same sex is "an act of discriminating against an essentially identical group on the basis of sexual orientation.”

It also noted that the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS)’s recognition of a person in a common-law relationship as a dependent is not because he or she is an "opposite-sex partner." In other words, if a couple of the same sex or the opposite sex is economically and emotionally dependent on each other, they should be recognized as a dependent without discrimination.

The Supreme Court said that discriminating against people on the basis of their sexuality, even in a basic social security system, is a serious violation of their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court said, "Exclusion from dependents means that the relationship between two people who live together and support each other is not recognized even in the dependents system of health insurance, a basic social security system, rather than the traditional family law system. This is a discriminatory act that violates human dignity and values, the right to pursue happiness, freedom of privacy, and the right to be equal before the law, and the degree of infringement is severe."

It also called on administrative authorities to recognize the illegality of discrimination more broadly. Given the nature of health insurance, which has been implemented to address inequality, the Supreme Court said, “It is required to actively respond to the changing patterns of family today to resolve inequality."

However, Justices Lee Dong-won, Noh Tae-ak, Oh Seok-joon, and Kwon Young-joon issued a separate opinion, stating that “it is difficult to say that the substance of marriage exists in same-sex relationships.” Their concern was that "the court's ruling on individual cases may result in fundamentally changing the institutions or concepts that form the basis of our society." Legally, a spouse is based on the premise of "combination between the opposite sexes," so they thought that a "same-sex partner" should not be interpreted as the concept of a "spouse” and that “it is undesirable for the stability of legal interpretation if the concept of spouse is interpreted differently from law to law."

The ruling is expected to expand social security rights for same-sex couples in general. “Same-sex couples did not have any rights or obligations, but with this ruling, their legal status in the public system has been recognized, so I think the existence of same-sex couples will become more visible,” said Jang Seo-yeon, a lawyer at the GongGam Human Rights Law Foundation.

However, the legal status of same-sex couples remains unstable in Korea. Since 2001, same-sex marriage has been legalized in 34 countries around the world, including the Netherlands and three Asian countries, including Taiwan. Of the 38 member countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 25 recognize same-sex marriage. Korea, on the other hand, has no system that guarantees legal rights of same-sex couples.