2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts may be acknowledged according to each of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, or there is no dispute between the parties.

A. On May 16, 1937, the Plaintiff was enrolled in the Defendant company on December 1, 1980, and was employed as a Class 3 employee of the door-line 3 in the manufacturing country, and was on May 31, 1992, when he reached 55 years of age, the Plaintiff retired from office on May 31, 1992, and received KRW 32,632,408 as retirement pay.

B. However, according to the retirement age provision of Article 31 of the Labor-Management Organization Agreement concluded between the defendant company and the defendant company trade union (the effective term is from June 17, 1991 to June 16, 1992), the retirement age of class 3 employees shall be the last day of the month in which the age of 55 expires.

2. Determination on a claim for wages and retirement allowances from June 1, 1992 to May 31, 1993

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

According to the retirement age provision of the collective agreement in 1991, the plaintiff's retirement age is not on May 31, 1992, but on May 31, 1993, the last day of the month in which the age of 55 expires, "the last day of the month in which the age of 55 expires". Thus, a disposition that the defendant company should retire on May 31, 1992, which is the last day of the month in which the defendant company reaches the age of 55, shall be deemed as null and void as a matter of course, and thus, it is demanded to pay wages and retirement allowances from June 1, 1992 to May 31, 193.

In this regard, the defendant company stated that the last day of the month in which the age of 55 is terminated, "the last day of the month in which the age of 55 is terminated," which means that "the last day of the month in which the age of 55 is reached" or "the last day of the month in which the age of 55 is terminated, not "the last day of the month in which the age of 55 is reached," and therefore

Therefore, this paper will examine whether the date of setting the retirement age under the collective agreement in 1991 is "the last day of the month in which the age of 55 ends" or "the last day of the month in which the age of 55 ends" is actually referred.

(b) recognised facts;

The following facts are acknowledged in light of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 10, 15, 18, 21 through 24, 31, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, 3, 4-1, 2 (A evidence Nos. 11-1, part of Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 6, 12, and 13), Eul evidence Nos. 6, 12, and 13, and the purport of the pleading before the oral argument in the testimony of Kim Jae-in (the defendant alleged that the evidence Nos. 18, 30 and 2, and 3 are false documents with the manipulation of evidence Nos. 13 and testimony of the witness Kim Jae-as can be recognized according to the statements No. 13 and testimony of the witness Kim Jae-as).

(1) The provision on the retirement age of the third-class employee of the defendant company set the rules of employment in June 4, 1984, which was enforced at the time when there was no collective agreement, as "when the third-class employee reaches 50 years of age". However, the rules of employment enforced from August 1, 1987, which was extended to 53 years of age by 3 years of age."

(2) However, when the defendant company and the defendant company's trade union entered into a collective agreement for the first time in 1988 (it is effective from July 18, 198 to July 17, 1989), they decided to extend the retirement age of class 3 employees for two years as a result of the consultation on the retirement age of employees, but the enforcement date thereof agreed to increase the retirement age of class 3 employees for two years from 1989 to one year, and in a collective agreement, it stated that "the retirement age of class 3, 4 employees shall be the date on which the age of class 55 expires, and shall be in two years from 89 to one year, respectively, and accordingly, the retirement age of class 3 and 4 employees shall be when the retirement age of class 53 years reaches the age of age 54 from 1989 to 1905, and the above rules of employment was amended from 1905 to 1905."

(3) The lower court determined that the retirement age of class 3 employees under the collective agreement in 1989 of the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company’s trade union (it was effective from May 20, 1989 to May 19, 190) and the proviso of the collective agreement in 1988 that the retirement age of class 3 employees shall be extended by one year each year, and that “the date on which the age of 55 expires” shall be detached, and that the said proviso remains effective in the collective agreement in 1990 (it is effective from June 13, 1990 to June 12, 199).

However, under the above provision, in order to improve the retirement of the employee immediately before the date of birth, the collective agreement in 1991 set the retirement age provision as "the last day of the month in which the age of the third class employee in the collective agreement ends" by setting the retirement age provision as the retirement age on the last day of the month in which the employee reaches the retirement age.

(4) Meanwhile, in the language and text of collective negotiations from 1989 to 1991, the retirement age was set at the end of the month in which the age reaches the age of 55 or 'the end of the month in which the age reaches the age of 55', but the defendant company ordinarily interpreted the age of the above provision in our country rather than ‘the age of 55' and retired its members at the end of the month in which 'the age reaches the age of 55' or ‘the end of the day in which '55 years reaches the age of 55', and did not raise any objection against the above dispositions of the defendant company.

(5) At the time of the collective agreement in 1992, the defendant company’s trade union demanded that the retirement age of the members under the collective agreement in 1991 be increased from 196 to 2 years, and the retirement age of class 3 and class 4 employees shall be extended from 57 years of age, as a result of the negotiations thereafter, since 1997, which was set up on the part of the defendant company, the retirement age of the members shall be extended for one year, but a rise shall be suspended for one year, and the above retirement age provision shall be ambiguous in the interpretation of the collective agreement in 192 (effective from June 19, 1992 to June 18, 1993), and agreed that the above retirement age provision in the collective agreement in 192 (effective from June 19, 199 to June 18, 1993) shall be the end of 55 years of age. Members’ retirement age shall be suspended from 197 to 56 years of age."

(c) Markets:

(1) On the basis of the above facts, "the last day of the month in which the age of 55 ends, which is the retirement age provision applied at the time of the plaintiff's retirement," cannot be interpreted as "the last day of the month in which the age of 55 ends, as alleged by the plaintiff," notwithstanding the following provisions.

In other words, the provision on the retirement age of the collective agreement in 191 was used as it was revised by the last day of the month to which the date when the defendant company and the defendant company's trade union reached the retirement age in 198, i.e., the date when the age of 55 belongs. The original purpose of the provision on the retirement age of the collective agreement in 198 was to increase the retirement age of the third class members under the rules of employment of the defendant company for 2 years until the conclusion of the collective agreement in 198, i.e. the date when the third class members reach the retirement age of 53 years according to the rules of employment of the defendant company, i.e. the date when the third class members reach the retirement age of 50 years, i.e. the date when the third class members reach the retirement age of 9 years until the last day of the 1988, and it seems that the provision on the retirement age of the above 19-year 19th anniversary of the previous rules on the retirement age of the defendant 192.

(2) In light of the above, it is reasonable to regard the provision "the last day of the month in which the age of 55 ends, which is the retirement age provision of the collective agreement in 1991 applied to the Plaintiff, as "the last day of the month in which the age of 55 ends" as "the last day of the month in which the age of 55 reaches the age of 5

The plaintiff argues that the above provision on retirement age of a collective agreement in 192 is null and void since it reduces the existing retirement age for one year without the consent of the plaintiff, who is an interested party, so it cannot interpret the provision on retirement age of a collective agreement in 1991 based on that provision. However, as seen earlier, the interpretation of the provision on retirement age under a collective agreement applied at the time of retirement of the plaintiff should be interpreted as "when it reaches the age of 55" in light of the purport of the provision, etc., it is reasonable to interpret as "when it reaches the age of 55" and the collective agreement in the year 192 also

(3) Therefore, in the above sense, it is reasonable for the Defendant Company to dispose of the Plaintiff’s retirement date on May 31, 1992 at the end of the month when the Plaintiff reached the age of 55. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of unpaid wages and retirement allowances premised on the invalidity of the above disposition is without merit without further examining.

3. Determination as to the claim for unpaid retirement benefits by June 1, 1996

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

On May 31, 1992, the Plaintiff received piece rates equivalent to 350% of the basic salary from the Defendant Company, in addition to bonuses equivalent to 800% of the basic salary, for one year prior to his retirement. The above piece rates fall under actual bonus, and the Defendant Company calculated the Plaintiff’s average monthly wage for three months at the time of the Plaintiff’s retirement, including them, and calculated the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance based on it. However, as the Defendant Company calculated the monthly average wage for three months at the time of the Plaintiff’s retirement and paid the retirement allowance based on it, it sought payment of the difference between the retirement allowance duly calculated and the retirement allowance already received.

(b) Markets:

(1) In addition to bonuses equivalent to 80% of the basic salary stipulated in the rules of employment or collective agreement after 1989, the defendant company paid to the executives and employees under the pretext of special encouragement or piece rate. The plaintiff also received 50% of the basic salary in June and November in addition to bonuses from the defendant company, 191, 100% of the basic salary in October and December in 1991, 350% of the basic salary in January 192 as piece rate rate, 350% of the basic salary in January 1992. According to the collective agreement of 1991 at the time of retirement of the plaintiff, in calculating the average salary in March 199 as the basis for calculation of piece rate, the bonuses included therein are divided by 12, and 30% of the average salary in 36% between the parties to the plaintiff and 38% of the total salary in 198 and 38% of the average salary in 198.

(2) Therefore, first, we examine whether the Defendant Company’s calculation of the retirement pay to the Plaintiff is against the rules of employment or collective agreement of the Defendant Company to deduct the amount equivalent to 350% of the above performance-based bonuses from the scope of bonuses entered in the calculation of the monthly average wage for three months.

(A) The following facts may be acknowledged if Gap evidence Nos. 2, 7, 22, 23, 25, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 8-1 through 63, and Eul evidence Nos. 8-1 through 63, and witness Kim Jae-as testimony, were submitted to the whole purport of the pleadings.

1) The Defendant Company has paid the amount equivalent to 100% of the basic salary in 1989, 250% in 1990, 300% in 191, and 400% in 192 as bonus under the pretext of special bonus or piece rate (hereinafter “ piece rate”) separately from bonus (hereinafter “ piece rate”). The said piece rate is subject to collective bargaining in each corresponding year, and the scope of total payment was determined as a number of% in the basic salary in each corresponding year, and has been paid from time to time through a union’s recommendation or determination by the Defendant Company.

2) The rules of employment and collective agreement for the calculation of retirement allowances under the defendant company's rules of employment provide that retirement allowances shall be calculated by multiplying the average wage for three months at the time of retirement by the base rate for payment according to the continuous service period; Provided, That bonuses shall be calculated by dividing the amount paid for one year from the base date of calculation by 12; the base rate for payment of retirement allowances for those who have served in the continuous service for 10 to 14 years as at 192 by the total number of years of continuous service shall be 1.14 times; if there is a fraction less than a year of continuous service, not less than six months shall be calculated as one year

3) However, the Defendant Company’s benefit rules refer to the amount determined by the principal salary, bonus, and salary grade system, and the principal salary refers to the amount determined by the salary grade system, and the amount of the various allowances refers to price allowance, job allowance, job allowance, job allowance, and other allowances, and the bonus shall be 700% of the annual principal salary, and 100% of the annual annual annual paid leave allowance shall be paid, but the payment rate may be adjusted by the president, depending on the circumstances of the head office.

4) Although the Defendant Company and its labor union have concluded a collective bargaining agreement and wage agreement on the performance-based rates every year since 1989, the same wage agreement is based on a separate wage agreement from 1990 to 1991, it shall be paid in accordance with the attached Table for extension, night, holiday allowances, and holiday allowances, and the members’ retirement allowances shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the average wage for three months by the base rate for payment according to the continuous service period, and the standard for calculation of annual monthly retirement allowances shall be the amount paid at the end of the preceding year of retirement. In addition, even under the separately agreed wage agreement, the basic salary and price allowances shall be 7% in the year 1990, 9% in the year 191, and 5% in the year 192, but only the bonus shall be paid at 1,3,5,7,97,9,11, and 10% in the base amount for 10% in the year of retirement.

(B) According to the above facts, although the rules of employment and each collective agreement and each wage agreement of the defendant company have detailed provisions regarding wages and retirement allowances, they have been paid through collective bargaining every year since 1989 and they do not have any provision regarding the above piece-based bonus amounting to bonuses. In light of the above facts, the wage, which is the basis of calculating the monthly average wage under the above rules of employment and collective agreement and wage agreement of the defendant company, shall be deemed to refer only to the wage which is provided for in the rules of employment and collective agreement and wage agreement of the defendant company, and the above piece-based bonus amount paid without business performance, etc. shall be deemed to be excluded from the scope of the wage which is the basis of the calculation of retirement allowances. Therefore, it cannot be said that the calculation method of retirement allowances of the

(3) Furthermore, as seen earlier, the retirement allowance provision of the Defendant company is adopting the progressive payment rate, while excluding the above piece pay from the wage which is the basis for calculating the monthly average wage. However, in a case where 32,632,408 won of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance calculated under the above retirement allowance provision of the Defendant company exceeds the lower limit of the amount of the retirement allowance payment under Article 28(1) of the Labor Standards Act, the above retirement allowance provision does not constitute invalid provision in violation of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the above provision should be deemed as invalid. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance amount under Article 28(1) of the Labor Standards

From March 192 to May 1 of the same year, the Plaintiff received 2,867,00 won in total from the Defendant Company, 508,000 won in total as price allowances, 315,600 won in total as price allowances, 258,100 won in total as price allowances, and 136,000 won in total as extended duty allowances, and 7,418,000 won in total for one year before retirement, and the total amount of bonuses paid by the Plaintiff for one year before retirement is 3,230,50 won in total, and 3,230,500 won in total, and 1,104,220 won in the annual payment of bonuses in the previous year that the Plaintiff received by the Plaintiff may not be disputed between the parties, or shall be recognized by the witness testimony according to the witness testimony.

Therefore, when calculating the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Labor Standards Act, the amount of total wages paid by the Plaintiff for three months prior to the date of retirement is 7,022,880 won [basic pay 2,867,00 won + 508,000 won ＋ 315,600 won for office and duty allowances + 258,100 won + 136,000 won for extended service allowance + 136,854,500 won ＋ 1,854,500 won for extended service allowance + 3/12 ＋ 807,625 won (3,230,500 won x 3/12) ＋ 276,05 won (1,104, 2004, 203/1209) 】 360,000 won for retirement allowance 】 136,2961 of the Labor Standards Act.

Therefore, it is clear that the Defendant Company’s retirement pay of KRW 32,632,408 calculated by excluding piece rates from the wages, which are the basis for calculating the monthly average wage as stipulated in the provisions of retirement allowance provisions, pursuant to each provision on the calculation of retirement allowances and the collective agreement and the wage agreement, exceeds KRW 26,921,040, which is the lowest line of the retirement allowance against the Plaintiff guaranteed by Article 28(1) of the Labor

(4) Therefore, the defendant company's calculation of retirement pay to the plaintiff, excluding piece rates from bonus items, which serve as the basis for calculating the monthly average wage, is in accordance with the respective provisions of the retirement allowance of the defendant company, collective agreements and wage agreements, and since the above provisions and collective agreements and wage agreements cannot be deemed as invalid provisions in violation of the Labor Standards Act, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Lee Jae-in (Presiding Judge)