205 Ghana 118134 retirement pay

1. Stamb○○ ( omitted of resident registration numbers);

Article 2 (Omission of Resident Registration Numbers)

Omission of Plaintiffs’ Address

[Judgment of the court below]

Park (resident registration number omitted)

Address omitted

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

June 27, 2006

July 11, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay 9,67,067 won to the plaintiff Park ○○, and 3,319,171 won to the plaintiff and 20% interest per annum from November 26, 2005 to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

From August 1, 2000, the Plaintiffs retired on July 30, 2005 while working at the Defendant’s workplace. Accordingly, on December 27, 2005, the Defendant paid KRW 5,078,363 to Plaintiff Park ○○, and KRW 4,058,539 to the Plaintiff. However, without withholding medical insurance premiums, etc. to be paid by the Plaintiffs, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff monthly medical insurance premiums on behalf of the Plaintiff. However, each of the above money paid to the Plaintiffs as retirement allowances is the amount deducted from the amount of statutory retirement allowances under the Labor Standards Act, which is the amount of insurance premiums, etc. paid by the Defendant instead of the Defendant.

[Evidence] There is no dispute between the parties

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that, although they did not conclude an agreement to collectively deduct the above insurance premium, etc. from the retirement allowance, they did not pay only part of the retirement allowance stipulated in the Labor Standards Act.

As to this, the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiffs' share of the national pension payment on behalf of the defendant at the time of retirement allowance payment. The part of the retirement allowance claimed by the plaintiffs (hereinafter the plaintiffs' share of retirement allowance claimed by the plaintiffs) constitutes the total amount paid by the defendant on behalf of the defendant, and thus, the retirement allowance in this case has already been settled.

3. Determination

A. Unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, the existence of the agreement, in full view of the whole purport of the argument in the evidence No. 3-3, evidence No. 1, No. 2, evidence No. 3-1, No. 3-2, evidence No. 6-1, No. 7-1, and No. 7-4, and the testimony of the witness Doggggggging, etc., the Defendant proposed that “the employees, including the Plaintiffs, pay the amount of withholding tax, such as medical premiums, etc., which the Plaintiff should pay, instead of the company, and pay, in reality, the amount should be deducted from the retirement pay after the fact that the Plaintiffs consented to such deduction.”

B. The above agreement on the payment method of a retirement allowance null and void under the pre-payment agreement is ultimately to make a pre-payment of a part of the retirement allowance at the end of the employment contract, and it is examined whether the pre-payment of a retirement allowance under such agreement is effective as a retirement allowance under the Labor Standards Act.

Article 34(1) and Article 113 subparag. 1 of the Labor Standards Act provides that an employer shall pay retirement allowances to a retired worker for at least one year of retirement (Article 34(1) and Article 113 subparag. 1 of the Labor Standards Act). The employer’s obligation to pay retirement allowances is no longer likely to arise, and the employer may seek retirement allowances from the employer only after the date of termination of the employment contract, and the employer is also obligated to pay retirement allowances only after the date of termination of the employment contract. Since the employer is also obligated to pay retirement allowances under the pre-payment agreement between the parties to pay retirement allowances, the pre-payment of retirement allowances is not effective as retirement allowances under Article 34 of the Labor Standards Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da27671, Jul. 26, 2002; 200Da2767134, Feb. 3, 200).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gung-ho