1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff served as an employee belonging to the Defendant from March 17, 2005 to August 2, 2017; and (b) the Defendant did not pay KRW 23,754,642 to the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff’s retirement does not conflict between the parties; or (c) it may be acknowledged in accordance with the purport of each of the entries and arguments in subparagraphs A and 2 and the whole pleadings.

B. Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,754,642 of retirement allowance and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 17, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the 14th day after the retirement date.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff and the defendant concluded an agreement with the plaintiff to pay a certain amount in advance with the retirement allowance paid each month (hereinafter "agreement on the division of retirement allowances"), and accordingly, paid all allowances including retirement allowances.

B. In a case where an employer of relevant legal principles and an employee agreed to pay a certain amount of money in advance along with a monthly or daily allowance paid by the employer, such agreement is null and void in violation of Article 8 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, unless it is acknowledged that the interim settlement of accounts for retirement benefits under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the same Act is acknowledged, and thus, the employer has paid a certain amount of money in the name of retirement allowances to the employee pursuant to the agreement on the division of retirement allowances.

Even if there is no effect as retirement allowance payment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90760, May 20, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2012Da77006, Dec. 13, 2012). Meanwhile, even if an employer actually pays an employee a monetary amount in the name of retirement allowance, the payment of a lump-sum retirement allowance is recognized.