beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.26 2017나15576

퇴직금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of this court concerning the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the Plaintiff’s additional assertion, and thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, in light of the financial statements, accounting data, and accounting practices of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff trusted from the Defendant Company that the Plaintiff would receive retirement allowances during the Plaintiff’s tenure of office, the Defendant Company’s failure to pay retirement allowances violates the good faith principle.

Therefore, in light of the provisions of Article 48 of the articles of incorporation of the defendant company as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the articles of incorporation of the defendant company stipulated in Article 48 of the defendant company's articles of incorporation to allow the payment of retirement allowances only to the executives of the defendant company, rather than requiring the payment method to follow the regulations for the payment of retirement allowances to the executives of the defendant company. Even if the financial statements and accounting materials of the defendant company set the retirement allowances for the officers of the defendant company are limited to the obligations, the provisions for the payment of retirement allowances to the officers of the defendant company are also the plaintiff who did not have the regulations for the payment of retirement allowances for the officers of the defendant company. Considering the circumstances where there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff had the practices for the payment of retirement allowances to the officers of the defendant company prior to the retirement of the officers of the defendant company