The defendant is a company that manufactures and sells electronic parts. The plaintiff A worked for the defendant company from August 1, 2002 to June 23, 2010, and the plaintiff B from February 17, 2003 to July 15, 2010.

B. The retirement pay of the Plaintiff A calculated on the basis of the time of retirement is KRW 23,875,673, and KRW 15,730,029 for Plaintiff B.

The defendant did not pay the above retirement allowance to the plaintiffs.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay retirement allowances to the plaintiffs.

B. As to the Defendant’s argument on the installment payment of retirement allowances, the Defendant asserted that since the conversion into the annual salary system on August 2000, the retirement allowances not paid to the Plaintiffs did not remain since the payment of statutory retirement allowances was included in the monthly salary under the employment contract with the Plaintiffs.

Retirement allowance is a requirement for the termination of a labor relationship, and there is no room for the duty to pay a retirement allowance as long as the labor contract remains in existence. Thus, even if a certain amount of money is paid as retirement allowance under the daily wage paid, it is not effective as retirement allowance payment under Article 28 of the former Labor Standards Act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da24699, Mar. 24, 1998). Thus, the Defendant’s payment of retirement allowance by installments is invalid as retirement allowance payment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

As to the claim that Plaintiff A’s retirement allowance claim terminated by prescription, the Defendant asserted that the statute of limitations had expired before June 24, 2013, since Plaintiff A retired on June 22, 2010. However, according to the evidence No. 6, Plaintiff A retired on June 23, 2013.