2. The part concerning the claim for retirement pay in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. As to the instant case, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the difference arising from the error in calculating the annual monthly allowance, overtime allowance, and ordinary wage, which forms the basis for calculating the amount of the annual ordinary wage paid to the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant sought payment of the difference in the wages and retirement allowance, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Plaintiff received retirement consolation benefits at the time of retirement and

B. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the Plaintiff received retirement benefits and retirement consolation benefits from the Defendant on March 11, 2010, and retired from office, and prepared and delivered a desired retirement source to the Defendant that “I confirm that I will not raise any objection to the civil criminal administration pertaining to retirement after the retirement,” and there is no counter-proof. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff agreed to not file a lawsuit, such as civil litigation, with the Defendant, regarding all legal relations arising from the termination of labor relations with the Defendant while retired from office. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of KRW 5,01,563 among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights, as it goes against the agreement on the lawsuit of this case.

C. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the difference arising from the error in calculating the annual monthly allowance and ordinary wage, which is the basis of calculation of overtime allowance, among the lawsuit in this case, the above part of the claim is effective. However, since the above part of the claim does not arise due to the termination of the Plaintiff’s labor relationship, it cannot be deemed that the above part of the claim is effective. Thus, the Defendant’s defense on this part of the claim cannot be accepted.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff, on December 11, 1989, is the Defendant (Seoul ADDD Co., Ltd., and on December 23, 2009, the Plaintiff is the Joint Island Co., Ltd., and again on November 10, 201.