퇴직금 등 청구
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
(b).
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for adding the judgment of the plaintiffs’ assertion emphasized in the trial as follows, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420
2. The summary of the claim that the plaintiffs emphasize in the trial at the trial, the defendant merely announced that he would pay retirement consolation benefits based on the "average Wage" at the time of the plaintiffs' desired retirement, and did not state that the scope of the claim is different from the average wage under the Labor Standards Act, as the above "average wage" excluded work support expenses.
Therefore, the "average wage", which is the basis for calculating retirement consolation benefits, shall be deemed as the average wage under the Labor Standards Act, and it shall include work support expenses.
Judgment
In light of the purport of the honorary retirement system, the employer has discretion to determine the standards for the total amount of remuneration, which serves as the basis for the calculation of retirement consolation benefits, in consideration of various circumstances, such as the management status of the employer or the current economic situation, and the standard for the calculation of retirement consolation benefits prescribed at that time is valid as delegated by the employer’s remuneration regulations, unless there exist special circumstances, such as abuse or abuse
[See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da209037, 2017Da209044, May 16, 2019; Supreme Court Decision 2003Da9254, July 29, 2005, etc.] In addition, retirement consolation money is not a statutory wage under the Labor Standards Act, unlike retirement pay, not a statutory wage under the retirement allowance. Thus, the employer determined the amount of “average wage” to be calculated based on the “average wage” and the scope of “average wage” was set differently from the average wage under the Labor Standards Act.
even if such employer’s measures are illegal
or abuse the discretionary scope.
According to the health stand and the evidence cited above, the defendant at the time of voluntary retirement of the plaintiffs.