The case holding that the termination of the existing employment relationship or the time limit for deliberation to limit the number of years of continuous service in the calculation of retirement allowances cannot be deemed to be the time limit for deliberation in order to cancel the existing employment relationship or limit the number of years of continuous service in the calculation of retirement allowances, on the ground that the starting point of the number of years of continuous service is based on the intention of the internal deliberation that

The case holding that the calculation of the number of years of continuous service when an employee submits a resignation document to the company or receives an interim retirement allowance from the company shall not be deemed to have been based on the internal intent of the deliberation, unless it is based on the internal intent of the deliberation that the period of continuous service shall be calculated by changing the retirement allowance payment rate from the payment system to the fractional payment system, or it shall not be deemed that the existing employment relationship is terminated,

Article 107 of the Civil Act, Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Meu15413 Decided August 8, 1989 (Gong1989, 1343) 90Da1322 Decided May 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 1723), Supreme Court Decision 90Da15860 Decided June 14, 1991, 92Da18245 Decided September 14, 1992 (Dong)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Hong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na58095 delivered on April 22, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that on February 1, 1966, the plaintiff 1 was employed as a member of the defendant company with a limited employment period of 197.11.2 of the 1976 (the above 1.2.1 of the 1.2.) that the retirement allowance was treated as one-lane member again on November 4 of the same year and was treated as two-lane member retirement allowance on June 21, 197, and the two-lane retirement allowance was disposed of again on June 10 of the same year. The plaintiff 2 was retired from office on January 28, 1987; the plaintiff 1 was also treated as one-time retirement allowance of the above 19-year employees with a limited employment period of 197. The plaintiff 1 was also treated as one-time retirement allowance of the above 19-year employees with a limited employment period of 197. The plaintiff 2 was also treated as one-time retirement allowance of the above employees under the collective agreement.

2. However, according to the court below's ruling that Gap's retirement allowance system was considerably applicable to Gap's 8, 7, and Eul's 17 evidence for 17, Eul's 1, Eul's 9-2, Eul's 13-2, 11, 18, and Eul's 9-2, and Eul's 9-1 through 35 (each written petition for 9)'s 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 19's 1's 1's 9's 1's 9's 1's 9's 1's 1's 1's 9's 1's 1's 9's 1's 1's 1's 9''''''''''''''s 1'''''''s 1'''''''''''''''''''6''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2 1'7 1'2'2'2'2'.

3. Accordingly, the court below should have deliberated on whether the starting point of the number of years of continuous service in the calculation of retirement allowances is to be changed in the calculation of retirement allowances by terminating the existing employment contract relations instead of paying interim retirement allowances to employees under the policy to reduce the heavy burden of the payment of retirement allowances by the progressive rate, or whether the starting point of the number of years of continuous service in the calculation of retirement allowances by concluding a new employment contract was to change the existing employment contract relations and the calculation of retirement allowances from the advanced payment system to the single payment system without keeping it as it was. However, the court below judged that the period of continuous service is severed in the calculation of retirement allowances. The court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by violating the rules of evidence, which affected the judgment, and therefore, the argument

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)