퇴직수당지급결정처분 취소 청구의 소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts which are used or added. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420
(1) The court of first instance and the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion, even if all of the evidence presented by the court of first instance and this court were examined, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiffs in this court are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Plaintiffs in the first instance court. The court of first instance and the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion are justifiable. The court of first instance and the court of first instance
The Plaintiffs filed an application for retirement allowances to each Defendant on December 4, 2018, and the Defendant shall be the Public Officials Pension Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
Article 62 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”)
() Pursuant to Article 58, the Plaintiffs’ retirement allowances for 33 years during the Plaintiffs’ tenure of office shall be calculated as indicated in the following table, and each of them shall be paid to the Plaintiffs on January 9, 2019 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
(B) the following is added to five (5) first instance judgment, five (9) pages “B”:
The legislative purpose of the retirement allowance system is to promote equity with the private sector and meet temporary requirements at the time of retirement, taking into account the fact that there is no pure employer's retirement allowance, such as the payment of retirement benefits, to a public official who excludes retirement benefits, etc. paid according to the social insurance principle. In light of such legislative purpose, it can be easily predicted that the amount of retirement allowances would be determined as necessary amount for temporary requirements of retirement public officials in consideration of the amount of retirement benefits, etc. and the amount of retirement of private workers;
2. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed in entirety as there is no reasonable ground.
This conclusion is the same.