All of the plaintiffs' claims (including the part expanded in the trial) are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay the amount of 19,958,029 won to the plaintiff's defects, 13,073,936 won to the plaintiff's yellow jury, 13,950,628 won to the plaintiff's abnormal criminals, and 2,000 won per annum from April 28, 1989 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

In this case’s claim, where a public official who has been engaged in the duties of the State or a local government pursuant to the former part of Article 50(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act retires and becomes an employee of the Corporation, the former public official’s period of service shall be added to the period of service in calculating the retirement benefits of the Corporation. The above provision also provides for the same purport. In the payment of retirement benefits to the plaintiffs, the above non-party 2 shall not add the period of service against the Public Officials Pension Act and the retirement benefits payment provision of the non-party 2, but shall consider the period of service as the period of service in the non-party corporation and only the period of service in the non-party corporation as the period of service. The defendant, who comprehensively received the rights of the above non-party corporation, received the retirement benefits from the public official in accordance with the former part of Article 50(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act and received the retirement benefits payment from the public official in accordance with the former part of Article 50(2) of the same Act and received the retirement benefits payment from the public official in accordance with the above provision of Paragraph 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act.

Therefore, as to whether the provision of the former part of Article 50 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act applies to a person who is receiving a retirement pension by claiming a retirement pension separately for the period of his/her service as a public official at the time of his/her retirement, Article 50 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act does not explicitly exclude the person receiving the retirement pension from the applicable scope. However, the latter part of Article 50 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act provides that "where the public official retires or dies from the public corporation, he/she shall transfer the amount equivalent to the retirement benefits or the lump-sum retirement benefits of the former public official under this Act to the public corporation at the time of his/her retirement, he/she shall not be included in the applicable scope of the retirement pension (the person receiving the retirement pension does not have any reason such as transferring the lump-sum retirement pension or lump-sum retirement benefits from the public official pension to the public corporation). Since there is no dispute about the establishment of the above provision, the legislative purpose of each provision is to postpone the payment of temporary retirement pension from the public official to the public official's temporary retirement pension.

(3) Considering that the retirement pension plan is a kind of preferential treatment for those retired from the above 20 or more years of service, and that it is no system that is recognized at the time of retirement of public officials, and that a public official who has been engaged in the above business becomes an employee of the Corporation, the retirement pension can not be claimed for the retirement pension of the public official, and that the remaining amount of retirement pension can not be received from the public official under the provision of the above 7th Public Officials Pension Act, including the retirement pension of the public official under the provision of the above 5th Public Officials Pension Act, because the remaining amount of retirement pension can not be considered as the retirement pension of the public official under the provision of the above 7th Public Officials Pension Act, because it would not be unfavorable for the public official to receive the retirement pension under the provision of the above 5th public official pension plan to receive the above total amount of the retirement pension under the provision of the 5th public official pension plan, because the above provision of the 5th public official's retirement pension plan would not be applied to the public official under the provision of the above 5th public official pension plan.

If so, Article 50 (2) of the Public Officials Pension Act, which provides that the retirement allowance payment provision of the above non-party 2 shall be applied to the person receiving a retirement pension separately for the period of public service as the plaintiffs like the plaintiffs, shall be dismissed as all of the claims of this case. The judgment of the court below shall be revoked by accepting the plaintiffs' claims, and the plaintiffs' claims (including the extended part at the trial) shall be dismissed in its entirety, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs who have lost both the first and second trial.

Judges Ansan-tae (Presiding Judge)