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 why the court should explain in this decision are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the cases where a part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The part of the "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" in Article 15 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be applied.

(b) the fourth 12th 12th 12th 12th 12th 12th 12th 12th 4th 12th 1st 1st 1st 2th 1st 2th 35,823,416th 20

(c)The following shall be added between the third and fourth sentence of the first instance court:

【The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the Defendant did not submit to the obligor a statement of account payment proving the payment of monthly payments under the conditions as stipulated by the Mutual Aid Agreement, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to hold a claim for retirement stabilization subsidies of KRW 35,823,416. However, if the Defendant’s statement of No. 7 submitted at the trial and the above evidence were presented, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant deposited KRW 462,00 as monthly payments to the obligor’s bank account as stipulated in the Mutual Aid Agreement, and thus, the above assertion by the Plaintiffs based on a different premise cannot be accepted.

D. The part of the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant's retirement stabilization subsidy claim is null and void is acceptable in entirety, considering all the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs up to the trial and the circumstances of its argument, the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant's retirement stabilization subsidy claim is null and void is all without merit. In full view of the above circumstances, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance stating that "It is difficult to accept all the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant's retirement stabilization subsidy claim is null and void."

3. Conclusion.