2. Each of the instant lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff (Appointed) and the designated parties to retirement allowances.

A. In this case, the Plaintiff and the designated person (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) asserted that they are liable to pay the difference arising from the error in calculating annual monthly allowances, overtime allowances, and ordinary wages that were the basis of calculation of retirement allowances paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, etc., and that they sought payment of the difference in each wage and retirement allowances to the Defendant, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit by the Plaintiff, etc. was unlawful, since the Plaintiff, etc. received retirement consolation benefits at the time of retirement and agreed to

B. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5-1 and 2, the plaintiff, on March 9, 2010, and the designated person, on March 8, 2010, upon receiving retirement benefits and retirement consolation benefits from each of the defendant, and retired from office on March 8, 2010, and the defendant prepared and delivered a desired retirement statement to the defendant that "I confirm that I will not raise any objection under the civil criminal administration related to retirement after the future," and there is no counter-proof. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff et al. agreed not to institute a civil lawsuit, etc. as to all legal relations arising from the termination of labor relations while retiring, and therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim of KRW 2,067,813 and the selected person's claim of KRW 1,839,688 among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because there is no benefit in the protection of rights against the above sub-committee agreement.

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, is effective as to the claim for wage, but the above part of the claim is not caused by the retirement of the Plaintiff, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above part of the claim does not affect the above part of the claim agreement. Thus, the Defendant’s defense on this part is rejected

2. Judgment on the merits.