(a) The case holding that since the starting point of calculation of the number of years of service submitted by a private employee is based on the intention to make the interim retirement allowance according to the policy to change the rate of payment of retirement allowances without being kept as it is, it cannot be deemed that the labor contract is terminated, or that the period of service cannot be viewed as due to the intention to limit the number of years of service in calculating retirement allowances, and the act of submitting private employees

(b) The case holding that there is no obligation to pay an interim interest, since an interim retirement allowance already received has been repaid in advance after giving up the benefit of time.

(c) Where a withholding agent of income tax, etc. orders the payment of retirement allowances for which withholding taxes are not deducted in his/her judgment, the method of withholding income tax;

A. The case holding that since the starting point of calculation of the number of years of service submitted by a private employee is based on the intention of having the retirement allowance paid in accordance with the policy to change the rate of retirement allowance, the act of submitting the private employee is null and void on the ground that the labor contract is terminated, or it cannot be viewed as due to the intention of the internal deliberation to limit the number of years of service in calculating retirement allowance, and the employer is also aware

B. The case holding that there is no obligation to pay an interim interest, since an interim retirement allowance already received has been given up of the benefit of time and has been paid in advance.

(c) Where a judgment orders the withholding agent of income tax, etc. to pay a retirement allowance for which withholding tax has not been deducted, the withholding agent shall withhold income tax, etc. at the stage of paying the retirement allowance according to the final and conclusive judgment, and where a recipient of income refuses to receive a retirement allowance after deducting the withholding tax amount, he/she may be exempted from

a.B. Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act. Article 107 of the Civil Act. Article 153(c) of the Civil Act. Article 149 of the Income Tax Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da1322 Decided May 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 1723), Supreme Court Decision 92Da18238 Decided September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2876), Supreme Court Decision 91Da38075 Decided May 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 201), Supreme Court Decision 91Da40931 Decided September 22, 1992 (Gong192, 2959)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Hong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na66355 delivered on July 10, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first to 6 grounds for appeal

According to the records, the plaintiff joined the defendant company on May 1, 1967 and retired from office on September 26, 197, and received KRW 3,078,460 as retirement allowance up to that time under the retirement allowance rules of the defendant company's collective agreement at the time of retirement. After re-admission on November 15, 190, the plaintiff was paid KRW 22,012,429 as retirement allowance while retirement allowance was retired on October 14, 1990. The retirement allowance rules of the defendant company were under the collective agreement of the defendant company as of May 14, 1966. However, although the collective agreement was concluded on May 14, 196, the scope of employee subject to progressive payment was reduced or adjusted as of May 197, and the collective agreement was amended each year as of October 1, 1979 to renew the retirement allowance rate as of October 18, 198.

In this case, according to the relevant evidence established by the court below as to whether the employment contract relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated or terminated without the plaintiff's intention to resign from the above employment contract of the defendant company, the defendant company submitted the retirement allowance by the short-term retirement rate of 10 years since its financial standing has deteriorated around 197 and its previous operation pressure factors, and the collective agreement was concluded in the direction that the short-term retirement allowance for the continuous service workers has been significantly lowered for 10 years or longer, and it was demanded that the plaintiff submit the retirement allowance payment, re-admission measures, wage increase, bonus increase, and retirement age extension to the employees, and uniformly, without the plaintiff's intention to resign from the above employment contract of the defendant company by the 19th day without the plaintiff's intention to resign from the above employment contract of the non-party 2. According to the above management policy of the defendant company, the plaintiff's act of receiving the retirement allowance by changing the retirement allowance rate of 10 years or longer without the plaintiff's intention to retire from the above employment contract of the defendant company.

The court below's fact-finding and determination are justifiable in light of the relevant evidence established by the court below. However, according to the reasoning of the court below, it is recognized that the plaintiff's submission of the above private staff was submitted by the coercion of the chief of the superior officer of the defendant company, which may be subject to the criticism that it was erroneous in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, but the court below, on the other hand, recognizes that the plaintiff's expression of intention was an improper declaration of intention based on the internal intent as stated in

In addition, the argument is that interim retirement allowances received by the plaintiff are paid by mistake of the defendant, so the plaintiff has an obligation to pay interest during the lawsuit, but it cannot be deemed that the defendant paid the above interim retirement allowances before the due date due to mistake of the defendant. According to the records, the court below is justified in the same purport as the defendant knew that it was prior to the due date, and it is recognized that the defendant given up the benefit of time and paid in advance in accordance with the above policy to reduce the payment of retirement allowances. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of facts, precedents and theories, abuse of rights, or violation of the principle of good faith. All arguments are without merit.

2. On the seventh ground for appeal

According to the records, the court below's order to pay a retirement allowance which did not deduct the withholding tax from the defendant in this case cannot be deemed to be unlawful, and in this case, the defendant shall withhold income tax at the stage of paying the retirement allowance after the decision of this case became final and conclusive, and if the plaintiff refuses to receive a retirement allowance after deducting the withholding tax, he may be exempted from his liability by paying it as a repayment deposit (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da38075 delivered on May 26, 1992). This decision of the court below is a different issue from this case, and thus, it cannot be a proper precedent. The decision of the court below is just as above and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit or incomplete deliberation, and there is no merit in its conclusion.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.