임금
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts are significant in this court.
On October 31, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for retirement allowance claim under Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2006Gau172083, and was sentenced to the judgment of the court of first instance that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 1,545,953 won and the interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from August 10, 2006 to October 31, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”
B. Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance. On January 22, 2009, the appellate court (Seoul Southern District Court 2007Na13003) rendered a decision to revise the judgment of the court of first instance to the effect that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 913,03 won and 78,134 won with the interest of 20% per annum from August 10, 2006 to the date of full payment, 834,199 won, with the interest of 5% per annum from August 10, 2006 to January 22, 2009, and with the interest of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment."
C. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial, but on May 28, 2009, the judgment dismissing an appeal was rendered on May 28, 2009 (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da16391) and became final and conclusive on the same day.
2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. Any ground for retrial asserted by the Plaintiff does not calculate average wages by dividing the “total amount of wages paid to the Plaintiff during the three months immediately preceding the retirement date” pursuant to Article 2(1)6 of the Labor Standards Act by the total number of days during which the period was calculated, and the “total amount of wages paid to the Plaintiff during the six months immediately preceding the retirement date” was calculated by erroneous calculation of average wages by dividing the “total amount of wages paid to the Plaintiff during the six months immediately preceding the retirement date by the total number of days during which the period was calculated, thereby violating Article 2(1)6 of the Labor Standards Act. Moreover, the number