logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2020.09.03 2017다200719
퇴직금 청구의 소
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal relating to the validity of interim settlement in the instant case, Article 8(2) of the former Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act (amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter “former Retirement Benefits Act”) provides, “An employer may, upon a worker’s request, settle accounts of retirement allowances for the period during which the employee continued to work in advance before retirement.”

In full view of the legislative intent of the retirement allowance system and the nature of the retirement allowance, etc., if an agreement on interim settlement of the retirement allowance is reached according to the free will of an individual employee, the interim settlement of the retirement allowance shall be deemed valid only when an employee demands interim settlement of the retirement allowance in advance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da48891 Decided December 26, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da41045 Decided October 25, 2012). The lower court determined that the Plaintiffs’ consent to the interim settlement of accounts in this case cannot be deemed as valid, in view of the following: (a) the interim settlement of accounts in this case was transferred directly to the accounts in the Plaintiffs’ names; and (b) the Plaintiffs were holding for 20 days up to the transfer to the payment for capital increase; and (c) there were no sanctions or interference from the Plaintiff Company I (hereinafter “I Bank”) in the process; (b) the Plaintiffs received interim settlement of accounts in accordance with their own intent or decision; and (c) the Plaintiffs owned the retirement allowances, upon their own request, paid all or part of them as the payment for capital increase.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the foregoing legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and breached logical and empirical rules.

arrow