퇴직금 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who is operating tegrative fishery business, etc. (hereinafter “instant company”); and the Plaintiff began to work for the instant company from October 1, 1998 and retired on April 30, 2014.
B. The Defendant introduced an interim settlement system from around 2006 to 201. The Plaintiff, around December 31, 2007, prepared an interim settlement system (from October 1, 1998 to December 31, 2006, retirement allowance of 15,590,389 won), December 28, 2007 (from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, retirement allowance of 2,178,58 won); and on December 31, 208 (from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2008 to 10,000 won each of the retirement allowances (from December 31, 2008 to 200,000 won); and on December 31, 2019 to 30,201.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul 3 through 12 (including various numbers in the case of additional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant’s interim settlement of the retirement allowance is null and void. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the remainder after deducting the retirement allowance received by the Plaintiff from the interim settlement of the retirement allowance null and void from the total amount of the retirement allowance calculated accordingly.
3. Determination on claims for unpaid retirement allowances
A. Determination as to the validity of the instant interim settlement agreement is 1) In full view of the legislative intent of the interim settlement system and the nature of retirement allowances, etc., an interim settlement agreement for retirement allowances is not valid only when an employee actively demands interim settlement. If an interim settlement for retirement allowances was reached according to the individual employee’s free will, then the interim settlement for retirement allowances ought to be deemed valid (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da1548, May