(a) Method of calculating the number of years of service in calculating retirement allowances of a person who was appointed and worked as an employee of the next Corporation that was retired in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City as a public official in Seoul Special Metropolitan City and his duties are transferred to the subway Corporation

(b) The validity of Article 6 of the above Regulations on Retirement Allowance of the Corporation, which stipulates that the calculation of the length of service in the subway Corporation shall be calculated from the date of appointment to

(c) Where a person who retired from office as a public official and has been appointed as an employee of the said corporation due to the transfer of specific duties in Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the subway Corporation, fails to apply for the aggregation of the period of public service, or receives the lump sum of retirement benefits at the time of retirement from a public official, the addition to the period of service

A. In accordance with the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Establishment of the subway Corporation, the labor relations between the plaintiffs and the above subway operators shall be deemed to have been included in all the rights and duties that belong to the Seoul Metropolitan City subway Operation Office that succeeds in accordance with the Seoul Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment of the subway Corporation, and inasmuch as the plaintiffs who retired from the above subway Operation Office continue to engage in the same business under the same conditions without the suspension of work, the labor relations between the plaintiffs and the above subway Operation Office shall be deemed to have been comprehensively succeeded to the above subway Corporation and their continuity has been maintained. Therefore, in full view of these circumstances and the provisions of Articles 50(1), 23, and 24 of the Public Officials Pension Act and the provisions of Articles 2 and 6 of the Addenda to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Establishment of the subway Corporation, etc., in calculating retirement benefits in cases where the public officials were employed while serving as the public officials of the Corporation, the period under Articles 23 and

B. Article 70 of the Local Public Officials Act provides for the enactment of the retirement allowance payment provision for officers and employees of the subway Corporation under Article 70 of the same Act, but does not cultivate the provisions of Article 50 of the Public Officials Pension Act concerning the calculation of the period of service. Thus, Article 6 of the above retirement allowance provision which stipulates that the calculation of the period of service among the above retirement allowance provision for the above corporation should be calculated from the date of appointment to the Corporation is invalid because it violates the provisions of Article 50 of the Public Officials Pension Act.

C. In case where the Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s specific duties are retired from office as a public official and retired from office as an employee of the said public official due to the transfer to the Seoul Metropolitan City subway Corporation, regardless of whether or not applying for adding up the period of his public official service pursuant to Article 50 of the Public Officials Pension Act, the service period of the said public official shall be naturally added to the service period of the said public official regardless of whether or not the plaintiffs filed an application for adding up the period of his public official service. Even if the plaintiffs received the retirement lump sum payment while retired from office in Seoul Special Metropolitan City public official, it is merely an erroneous interpretation of Article 50 of the Public Officials Pension Act and a disposition in violation thereof, and thus, there

Article 23 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Articles 24 and 50 of the same Act, Article 70 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Installation of subway Corporation, Article 6 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Retirement Allowances for subway Corporation, Article 6 of the Seoul

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Emigration et al. al.

The Seoul Metropolitan Government subway Corporation

Seoul District Court Branch of Seoul District Court (88Gahap20508)

1. The part of the judgment below ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered under paragraph (2) shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Lee Young-young 37,932,850 won and the amount from June 4, 1987; from July 15, 1988, 52,436,416 won to the plaintiff Cho Young-gu; from September 15, 1987, 33,95,718 won to the plaintiff Kim Chang-ju; from September 15, 1987, 47,047,037 won to the plaintiff Kim Jong-young; from July 15, 1987 to February 2, 1990, 5 percent per annum; from the next to the next day, 25 percent per annum to the date of full payment. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. All the costs of lawsuit are five-minutes of the first and second instances, and one of them is the plaintiffs, and the remainder is the defendant's own burden.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Lee Young-young the amount of 37,932,850 won and the amount of 52,436,416 won from June 4, 1987; from July 15, 1988; from September 15, 1988, 33,95,718 won to the plaintiff Kim Chang-ju; from September 15, 1987, 47,047,037 won to the plaintiff Kim Jong-young; from July 15, 1987 to April 26, 1989, the amount of 5 percent per annum from the next 1987 to the next 25 percent per annum.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution (the plaintiff reduced the claim in the trial).

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revocation are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. The plaintiffs' continuous service period

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 3-2, Eul evidence Nos. 4-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4 (each career record card), and Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4 (each career record card), the public official of the court below's witness testimony and the whole purport of oral argument, the plaintiffs were employed as public official of the Korea Railroad, and retired from office during each period as stated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 1 of the retirement allowance calculation statement of the attached Table No. 1, and after the Seoul Metropolitan City subway Construction Headquarters was confirmed, the public official of the Seoul Metropolitan Government was established by the Seoul Metropolitan Government and transferred to defendant Corporation for each period as stated in paragraph (3) of the same Table, and the facts can not be acknowledged during each retirement period.

According to the provision of Article 50(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, the plaintiffs are entitled to pay retirement allowances to their employees under the same provision. According to the provision of Article 50(1) of the same Act, the period of service of the plaintiffs and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City public officials belonging to the Korea Railroad Corporation shall be determined by adding up the period of service under Article 23 of the same Act during the period of service of the plaintiffs to the Korea Railroad Corporation and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Officials Pension Act. According to the provision of Article 50(1) of the same Act, the defendant Corporation may set the criteria for the payment of retirement allowances of its employees under Article 70 of the Local Public Officials Pension Act, and accordingly, the calculation of the period of service of the public officials of the Korea National Railroad Corporation shall be made by adding up the period of service of the former public officials belonging to the Korea National Railroad Corporation to the Korea National Railroad Corporation's employees under the same provision of the former Public Officials Pension Act, if the former public officials who were employed by the Korea National Government Corporation under the same provision of Article 6 of the former Public Officials Pension Act.

Even if the above provision of the Public Officials Pension Act can be added to the previous public officials, the person who wants to be added to the above public officials shall take the procedure of adding up and approving the retirement benefits already received within the period prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act. 1 The plaintiffs shall not be added to the above procedure within the period prescribed by the Public Officials Pension Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act since they were retired and reappointed to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City public officials. 2 The plaintiffs shall not take the procedure of adding up the above procedure after they retired and were appointed to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City public officials, and according to Article 50 (1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, if they retired from the public officials under the above provision of the Public Officials Pension Act and retired from the public officials under the above provision of the Public Officials Pension Act, it shall be deemed that there is no reason to add up the retirement benefits of the plaintiffs to the public officials under the above provision of the Public Officials Pension Act, instead of the retirement benefits of the public officials under the above provision of the Public Officials Pension Act to the public officials under the same provision of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Officials Pension Act.

The defendant, despite the fact that the plaintiffs retired public officials belonging to Seoul Special Metropolitan City and were already paid retirement benefits according to the previous period of public official service in lump sum, it is in violation of the good faith principle to seek retirement benefits again to the defendant Corporation. However, even though they did not dispute the fact that the plaintiffs already received retirement benefits corresponding to the previous period of public official service, it is insufficient to conclude that the plaintiffs' claim for the difference of retirement benefits in this case is contrary to the good faith principle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above fact. Rather, considering the purport of oral argument in the testimony of the witness of the court below, the defendant Corporation paid the retirement benefits to the employees who were public officials belonging to the previous Seoul Special Metropolitan City subway Operation Office including the plaintiffs after becoming the employees of the defendant Corporation on January 1, 1984 when considering whether the plaintiffs would receive retirement benefits for the previous period of public official service in lump sum, and whether the retirement benefits will be received as a pension. Accordingly, the defendant Corporation calculated the period of service from the date when the plaintiffs were appointed to the defendant Corporation and paid the retirement benefits to the defendant Corporation.

Therefore, each continuous service period, which serves as the basis for the calculation of retirement allowances for the plaintiffs to retire from the defendant corporation, shall be the same period as that specified in paragraph (6) among the retirement allowance calculation details in attached Table 1 attached hereto, which is the sum of the periods lawfully followed during the plaintiffs' period of their service as public officials of the Korea Railroad and the tenure of office as public officials of Seoul Special Metropolitan City

2. Retirement allowance payment rate and retirement allowance;

According to each statement of Gap evidence 5 through 8 (detailed statement) and Gap evidence 10 (retirement allowance rules), where there is no dispute over the establishment of the defendant corporation, the defendant corporation shall pay the retirement allowance to the retired employee for one or more years, but the retirement allowance shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the average wage calculated under Article 19 of the Labor Standards Act as of the time of retirement by the payment rate according to the number of years of continuous service; the calculation of the number of years of continuous service shall be 12 months and 6 months or more; the number of months in excess shall be 1 year and 6 months thereafter; and the payment rate of a person who has more than five years of continuous service shall be calculated according to the formula of "the number of years of continuous service" x the number of years of continuous service x the number of days of continuous service x the number of days of continuous service x the average wage of the plaintiffs at the time of their retirement; and there is no counter-proof proof otherwise.

In the calculation of each retirement allowance of the plaintiffs recognized in the above facts and the preceding paragraph, the amount as stated in paragraph (9) of attached Table 1 shall be the same as the amount of each retirement allowance calculation in attached Table 1, and there is no assertion or proof that there was any other agreement with regard to the payment date, so it shall be the same as stated in Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act (10) which is 14 days from each retirement date.

The defendant's assertion that each retirement allowance received by the plaintiffs should be deducted from the retirement allowance received by the plaintiffs at the time of retirement as a public official of the Korea Railroad and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City public official, and the retirement allowance received by the plaintiffs at the time of retirement from the public official of the Korea Railroad. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs' retirement allowance received at the time of retirement should be deducted from the above retirement allowance because the plaintiffs were reappointed thereafter to public official of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City as prescribed by the Public Officials Pension Act, and the fact that the amount of retirement allowance corresponding to the period of the previous application was already returned as prescribed by the Public Officials Pension Act. The defendant's assertion that each retirement allowance received at the time of retirement from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the defendant Corporation should be deducted from the above retirement allowance. The fact that the plaintiffs' retirement allowance received at the time of retirement from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the defendant Corporation is the same as the amount set forth in paragraph (11) of the attached Table 1, and the fact inquiry about the members' public official pension management operation. However, there is no reason to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the retirement allowance to be received by the plaintiffs shall be as shown in paragraph (12) of the retirement allowance calculation statement in attached Table 1> which deducts the retirement allowance already received from the above recognition.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to dismiss the plaintiff's claim from June 4, 1987 for 37,932,850 won and its related 37,932,850 won and from July 15, 1988 for 52,436,416 won to the plaintiff's Cho Young-gu, and for 33,95,718 won to the plaintiff's Kim Chang-un, from September 15, 1987 for 47,047,037 won to the plaintiff's Kim Young-jo and its related part from July 15, 1987 for 9,000 won to the above 9,000 won to the plaintiff's 9,000 won to the above 9,000 won to the above 9,000 won to the plaintiff's 9,000 won to the above 9,0000 won to the above 9,000 won to the above 9,000.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jong-ro (Presiding Judge)