1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the court of first instance changed "this court" into "the first instance court", and (b) the 7th 8 to 9th 13th 13th 7th 7th 7th 7th 8th 7th 7th 8th 9th 13th 2th 2th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 8th 200, and therefore, (c)

2. In light of the following circumstances, including whether there was deviation from or abuse of discretionary power, and the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 and 2, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the payment of the lump-sum retirement pension and retirement allowance on the ground of the completion of the extinctive prescription is an abuse of right against the principle of good faith and thus cannot be deemed unlawful. A) Extinctive prescription is not run from the time when the right becomes objectively created and the right can be exercised and the right is not exercised.

Here, the term "non-exercise of rights" refers to the cases where there is a disability in the exercise of rights, for example, such as the non-performance of the period or the non-performance of the terms and conditions, and the reason why the exercise of rights is virtually difficult does not constitute such cases.

However, the exercise of the right of defense on the ground of extinctive prescription is governed by the principle of good faith and prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principle of the Civil Act. Thus, in special circumstances where it is impossible to expect the exercise of the right due to the de facto disability that could not exercise the right objectively before the completion of extinctive prescription, the obligor’s assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription

On the other hand, there was an objective obstacle that could not expect the creditor to exercise his right.