1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

A. The defendant is a company established for the purpose of marine cargo transportation business, etc., and the plaintiff is an employee of the defendant company.

B. From March 2012 to December 2012, 2013, the Defendant paid various statutory allowances to the Plaintiff (i) without reflecting the bonus (700% of the fixed wage by December 31, 2014, 500% of the fixed wage by January 1, 2015, and (ii) without reflecting the personal pension subsidy in ordinary wages.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, and the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the whole pleading as to the purport of the pleading has received various allowances in the state that bonuses, weekly holiday allowances, personal pension subsidies, etc. were not reflected as ordinary wages from March 2012 to December 2013. As such, the Plaintiff sought payment of the difference between the fixed allowances and the paid allowances, including the aforementioned items.

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff and the defendant reached an agreement on the allowances that occurred before September 30, 2014, the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

Judgment

It is null and void in violation of the Labor Standards Act, which is a mandatory law, to waive a right to claim future wages in advance or not to file a civil lawsuit thereon in advance. However, given that wages or retirement allowances for which a right to claim payment has already occurred are transferred to a private property area of an employee and entrusted to the disposition of the employee, the employee may freely dispose of them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da76317, Jan. 28, 2010): Provided, That if the waiver of the above right to claim wages cannot be deemed to be based on the employee’s free will, considering the characteristics of labor relations, the validity thereof should be denied.

On the other hand, if the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence and contents of the declaration of intention according to the contents of the document should be recognized unless there is any reflective evidence.