1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be applied for the return of the provisional payment.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not different from the allegations in the court of first instance. In full view of the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, it is difficult to view that an interim settlement of retirement allowances was reached according to the plaintiffs' individual and free will at the time of 2002. It is difficult to view that the defendant paid a certain amount of money as additional retirement allowances to the plaintiffs since 2003 as well as the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance that it is difficult to view that the defendant paid a certain amount of money as additional retirement allowances is justifiable, and even

Therefore, this court’s explanation on this case is to delete the part of “3 to 7 of the 8th judgment of the first instance,” and to accept it as it is the same as the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where “(3)” is referred to as “(3).” Thus, it is to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant’s motion to return the provisional payment is subject to the acceptance of an appeal, and as seen above, the Defendant’s motion to return the provisional payment cannot be accepted. As such, the Defendant’s motion to return the provisional payment cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendant are reasonable within the scope of the cited part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the remainder shall be dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is just, and all of the defendant's appeal and the motion for return of provisional payment are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.