A South Korean court ruled in 2024 [3] that a same-sex couple must be recognized as dependents for health insurance purposes.
The decision marks a rare legal victory for LGBTQ+ rights in a country where civil law still prohibits same-sex marriage. While the ruling provides a specific financial and medical benefit, it does not grant the couple full legal recognition as a married pair under South Korean family law.
Soh Seong-wook and Kim Yong-min, who have been in a relationship for eight years [2], brought the lawsuit against the National Health Insurance Service. The couple sought the right to be listed as dependents, a status that allows spouses, and family members to share insurance coverage and reduce individual costs.
The legal battle to secure this single right lasted four years [1]. Despite the victory, the couple said the scope of their legal recognition remains limited.
"The only right we gained is the right to be a dependent," Soh and Kim said. "It took four years to gain this one right, and in reality, this is the only thing that has changed."
Under current South Korean civil law, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. This legal framework excludes same-sex couples from a wide array of family-law protections, including inheritance rights, joint parental recognition, and tax benefits. The victory in the health insurance case highlights the disconnect between the judiciary's willingness to recognize certain practical benefits and the legislature's refusal to codify marriage equality.
The case has drawn attention to the ongoing struggle for "marriage equality" within the South Korean judicial system. While the health insurance ruling provides a precedent for recognizing the functional reality of same-sex partnerships, the couple remains legally strangers in the eyes of the state for almost all other civil matters.
“The only right we gained is the right to be a dependent”
This ruling represents a incremental shift toward the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships in South Korea. By decoupling health insurance benefits from the strict legal definition of marriage, the court has created a narrow precedent for 'functional' recognition. However, because the ruling does not challenge the core definition of marriage in civil law, it leaves a significant gap in legal protections, suggesting that full marriage equality will require legislative action or a higher-court challenge to the civil code.
