퇴직금 등
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.
2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, but 30% of them shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.
Ⅰ. The facts following the premise of the determination are found to be either a dispute or the purport of the entire pleadings, other than each macroscopic evidence.
1. On September 11, 1979, Plaintiff A was C and Plaintiff B was a D student, and was employed in the Defendant’s Ulsan First Factory (hereinafter “Defendant”).
2. On January 1, 2010, the Defendant entered into a collective agreement with the labor union in the Ulsan Industrial Complex (hereinafter referred to as the “association”) with which the Plaintiffs are affiliated, and Article 29 among them provides that:
After that, a collective agreement has been concluded with a union every year. Among them, the provisions on "retirement Age and Wage peak System" have been changed only to "Article 28", and the contents have continued to be the same.
[B] 1-1 through 1-3. 3. The plaintiffs reached the age of 56 in sequence, and received the calculation of each retirement allowance from the defendant as follows:
[A] 1, 2] A.
Plaintiff
A A
B. Plaintiff BD
4. Of the collective agreements concluded between a union and the defendant in 2013 (which is the same as that in 2014; hereinafter referred to as the collective agreements in this case), the retirement age as seen earlier and the wage peak system providing for retirement benefits, excluding retirement allowances, are as follows:
[B] 1-4, 1-5] 5. The following is the "statement of calculation of retirement allowances" received from the defendant at the time of retirement of the plaintiffs.
[A] 1-3, 2-3] Plaintiff A: Plaintiff B:
6. The term “pre-retirement advance payment” in the above item means the amount to be paid by adding 10% of the retirement allowance to the members who retire after continuous service for not less than 20 years, as calculated in the formula of “the number of years of continuous service 】 50,000 won” (the main sentence of Article 56(4) of the instant collective agreement); and
(proviso) 7. On October 13, 2016, the Plaintiffs, after their retirement from office, entered 80% of the regular bonus into ordinary wages in the Defendant’s calculation of the retirement allowance. As such, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that “Inasmuch as the regular bonus of 800% is included in the ordinary wages, the Plaintiffs shall include 800% of the regular bonus in the ordinary wages, thereby propertyizing the average wage and paying the shortage of retirement allowance