1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the claims added by this court are dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Judgment on the appeal

A. The court of first instance rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription constitutes an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith, while the Plaintiffs’ claim for retirement benefits has expired three years since August 1, 201, which was the day after retirement, although the Plaintiffs were to be the Defendant’s workers at the time when they worked as the Defendant’s main agent.

(b) Extinctive prescription shall not run from the time when a right occurs objectively and it can be exercised, and while it cannot be exercised, it shall not run.

In this context, the term “non-exercise of rights” refers to a case where there is a legal disability, for example, the non-performance of the term or condition, etc. in the exercise of rights, and even if there is no knowledge of the existence of such rights or the possibility of exercising such rights, or there is no negligence without knowledge or knowledge, such cause shall not be deemed a legal disability

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da15865 Decided September 9, 2010). The Plaintiffs asserted that the starting date of the extinctive prescription should be delayed or that the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription would be unreasonable based on the lapse of the lawsuit by other employees in a situation similar to the Plaintiffs, but unlike the Plaintiffs, the examples of other employees who filed a claim for retirement benefits within three years after retirement did not have any impediment to the Plaintiffs’ claim for retirement benefits.

In full view of the evidence presented to this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and thus, the judgment of the first instance is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

(However, among the judgment of the court of first instance (attached Form 2), the " September 1, 2010" on the date of conversion of Plaintiffs 27. AE and 30. AH into regular positions is respectively dismissed as " November 1, 2010."

A. The plaintiffs did not pay retirement allowances to the plaintiffs in this court.