1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as follows: (a) the court shall dismiss not only the 7th page 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance, but also the 19th page 19 of the same page from the 7th page 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff repeats or emphasizes in the trial of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding "additional judgment" as to the argument that the plaintiff repeats

(However, at the trial, the plaintiff withdrawn his argument that the effect of the abolition of the retirement allowance progressive system. 2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) the Defendant’s rules of employment (Articles 52 through 54), remuneration rules (Article 22) stipulate that daily work, day-day work, and three-day work, respectively. In the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s form of work was determined as daily work. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff actually worked as day-day work, the Defendant is obliged to calculate and pay allowances for overtime night work based on daily work as prescribed by the labor contract. (2) ① The Defendant’s rules of employment (Article 51) and interim settlement of retirement allowances (Article 4) are required to make an interim payment of retirement allowances.

However, the Defendant should not recognize the validity of the payment of retirement benefits, even though the Plaintiff did not file an application for interim settlement of the retirement benefits. However, the Plaintiff only claimed retirement benefits for which the amount of average wages has not been paid because it received less allowances for extended and night holiday workers, and the claim for interim settlement of the retirement benefits on the ground that the payment of interim settlement of the retirement benefits has no validity as the payment of retirement benefits is not different.

Even if its effect is recognized, ② the amount actually received as an interim settlement retirement allowance by February 7, 2012 by the Plaintiff is a total of KRW 69,947,380, which is less than KRW 4,282,110 of the Defendant’s assertion, and ③ the Defendant is a retirement pension.