임금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. On January 31, 2013, the Defendant’s allegation on the part of the Plaintiff regarding the allegation on the part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit (this safety defense) concluded on January 31, 2013, and received interim payment of retirement pay from the Defendant, and concluded a non-prosecution agreement with the Defendant to not raise any civil or criminal objection thereto, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.
Accordingly, according to the statements in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including additional numbers), it can be acknowledged that the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed on the interim payment of retirement allowances incurred from January 31, 2013 to January 31, 2013, and they agreed not to raise a civil or criminal objection against the interim payment of retirement allowances, and there is no agreement on the payment of retirement allowances incurred during the remainder of the period excluding the period.
In addition, retirement allowances are money having the nature of a later-paid wage paid to an employee who has been employed for a certain period of time and has the nature of a later-paid wage, and specific claim for retirement allowances occurs under the condition that the employee is retired after the completion of his/her continuous service. It is a violation of the Labor Standards Act, which is a mandatory law, to give up the right to claim retirement allowances, which occurs at the time of his/her final retirement, or to not file a civil lawsuit in advance, and thus is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da49732, Mar. 27, 1998). Even if the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to do so with respect to the right to claim for retirement allowances, it is reasonable to deem that it is null and void as it violates
Therefore, the defendant's defense of the above principal safety is without merit.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. 1) The defendant is a company with the purpose of shipbuilding processing, manufacturing, etc., and the plaintiffs were employed and worked for the defendant. 2) The plaintiff A entered the defendant company on July 1, 2010 and entered the defendant company on July 31, 2013.