임금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The facts that the Plaintiff retired from office on May 9, 2010 while serving in the Defendant Company from December 15, 2005 do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as set forth in subparagraphs 1-3 and 12.
2. The parties' assertion
A. From January 1, 2006 to May 9, 2010, the Plaintiff paid 113,376,564 won, retirement pay of KRW 9,632,370, and retirement pay of KRW 70,484,060 among them, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the remainder of unpaid wages and retirement pay of KRW 52,524,874 [=123,008,934 [=113,376,564 Won 9,632,370] and delay damages therefrom].
B. Even if Defendant Company had a claim for wages and retirement allowances against the Plaintiff, each of the claim expired after the lapse of three years.
3. Determination
A. The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is first examined.
Wages claims and retirement allowances shall expire by prescription, unless exercised within three years.
(Article 49 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 10 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. Wages are paid once or more a month on a fixed date (Article 43(2) of the Labor Standards Act). Thus, even if there was no agreement between an employer and an employee on the payment date of wages, it shall be deemed that the due date of each wage claim arrives at the end of each month. In such a case, an employer shall pay unpaid wages within 14 days after the retirement becomes effective (Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act). As such, the due date of payment of wage claims for labor from January 1, 2006 to May 9, 2010 shall expire at the latest on May 23, 2010 after the expiration of 14 days from the date of the Plaintiff’s retirement.
In addition, the plaintiff's retirement allowance claim is a claim with no fixed due date, which can be exercised by the plaintiff from May 9, 2010, which is a claim that can be exercised by the plaintiff.
However, this case.