1. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the waiver of a claim for retirement allowance and the interpretation of a non-claim agreement

Retirement pay is an amount of money having the nature of wage in return for the continuous service of an employee who has been employed for a certain period and is paid to the retired employee as compensation for such continuous service (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da17754, Sept. 14, 1992). It is a violation of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5305, Mar. 13, 1997; hereinafter the same shall apply), which is a mandatory law to give up the right to claim a retirement allowance that occurs at the time of the final retirement or to not file a civil lawsuit in advance (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da22174, Jul. 25, 1997).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, when entering into an employment contract with the defendant on the temporary basis of the decision of the court below, the wages to be paid by the defendant shall be limited to monthly wages paid on the basis of a certain working hours, overtime work allowances, daily allowances to be paid when the defendant worked in excess of a certain working hours, and other transport expenses and leave compensation, and it is evident that the defendant does not demand any additional compensation upon the termination of the employment period. Unless there are other special circumstances, this agreement shall be deemed to have been concluded that the defendant would waive any right to claim retirement allowances, etc., other than the amount listed in the above employment contract, or would not bring a civil lawsuit against it in the future. However, such agreement is in violation of the former Labor Standards Act, which is a mandatory law, and thus null and void. Therefore, even if the court below ordered the defendant to pay retirement allowances without deeming the above agreement as a non-assignment special agreement, such mistake does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the court below. The grounds of appeal pointing this out and the grounds of appeal pointing this out shall not be acceptable.

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of expression of intent and the probative value of a disposal document

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that foreign pilots, including the plaintiffs, receive high wages compared to domestic pilots due to the relation including the supply and demand of the defendant company's captain, high technical training of foreign captain, and other general welfare expenses. Thus, even if the defendant, in entering into a labor contract with the plaintiffs, determined higher level of the plaintiffs' wages compared to domestic pilots, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an intention to agree with the plaintiffs as to this point. In light of the records, the court below's determination is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of expression of intent and the probative value of the disposal document, violation of the rules of evidence, or incomplete deliberation.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that even if there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant to include the amount of retirement pay in the plaintiffs' wages, it is invalid because it was in violation of Article 28 (2) of the former Labor Standards Act prohibiting the system of retirement pay, since two retirement pay systems exist in a single workplace. However, this decision is merely a family judgment based on the premise that the payment of retirement pay is included in the wages after making a decision that the payment of retirement pay in the wages paid by the plaintiffs is not included in the retirement pay, so long as the above decision is just as seen above, the ground of appeal that there is an error in the judgment of the court below as pointed out in the above ground of appeal cannot be

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)