Plaintiff

Korea Businessex Co., Ltd.

December 10, 2015

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Kadan529599 Decided July 3, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 37,627,061 won with 5% interest per annum from January 1, 2009 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this Court is that the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for Paragraph 1 of the same Article, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the text of Article 420 of the

2. Determination as to the cause of action

The reasoning for this Court is that the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for Section 2-A of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of extinctive prescription

The defendant asserts that the retirement allowance claim of this case expired by the expiration of extinctive prescription.

In light of the above facts, according to Article 10 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, the retirement allowance payment period of this case is three years, and according to the above facts, the retirement allowance payment period of this case is December 31, 2008, which is the date when the plaintiff's service ends, and it is evident that the lawsuit of this case was filed on August 21, 2014, which is three years after the date when the plaintiff's service ends. However, in full view of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2, 7, and 2, the defendant requested the plaintiff to agree to pay the retirement allowance of this case over three years from March 24, 2010 to 2014, and the plaintiff's consent is recognized. According to the above facts, the defendant's request for postponement of the payment period of the retirement allowance of this case to the plaintiff is clearly approved as a ground for suspending the extinctive prescription period of this case. Thus, the defendant's assertion that this case's retirement allowance of this case was suspended within three years since the period of this case was suspended.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the above declaration of intention of the request for postponement of the payment period will be repaid in installments from 2012 to 2014 on the condition that the rehabilitation procedure for the defendant is in progress. As long as the above rehabilitation procedure was abolished on April 8, 2010, the above declaration of intention did not exist due to the non-performance of the condition, and the extinctive prescription of the retirement allowance claim of this case was completed.

On the other hand, if it appears that certain legal acts are conditional to be a legal act, that is, the conditions are attached to the legal act, there must be a concurrence of opinion between the parties as to the addition of the conditions, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a concurrence of opinion between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the addition of the condition that the rehabilitation procedure is in progress with respect to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)