2. Determination

A. If an employer and an employee agreed to pay in advance a certain amount of money with a monthly or daily allowance paid by the employee (hereinafter “retirement allowance installment agreement”), the agreement is null and void as it gives up in advance a claim for retirement benefits accrued at the time of the final retirement, unless it is acknowledged as an interim settlement of the retirement allowance under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Act, and is in violation of Article 8 of the Act, which is a mandatory law, and accordingly, the employer pays in accordance with the division agreement the amount in the name of retirement allowance to the employee.

Even if there is no validity as retirement allowance payment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90760, May 20, 2010). B.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant would pay 1.8 million won in monthly pay, including the retirement pay to E, and then paid 1.8 million won in monthly pay from November 29, 2012 to April 19, 2014 by dividing 1.730,000 won in retirement pay from November 29, 2012 to April 19, 2014. Although the Defendant demanded the Defendant to change the retirement pay after retirement, the lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant refused the payment of retirement pay by making the resident registration certificate as the shipment.

C. In light of the facts and legal principles as seen earlier, the aforementioned payment of retirement allowances cannot be deemed as effective as an interim settlement of retirement allowances or as a payment of retirement allowances. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have paid all retirement allowances to E.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.