1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the grounds for the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff retired from the office without using the above annual leave from February 1, 2010 to February 28, 2014, and the rehabilitation procedure commenced on July 4, 2016 and the defendant was appointed as a manager on July 29, 2016) as an employee of the same Construction Co., Ltd. (Skcheon District Court 2016 Mahap501, and the defendant was appointed as a manager on July 29, 2016). The plaintiff was entitled to annual leave from February 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014 with respect to the period of his/her work from February 16, 2014 to January 31, 2014; the plaintiff was entitled to annual leave from February 28, 2014 to 30% of ordinary wages from 15 days to 20% per annum.14 days per annum.5 days per annum.

2. The defendant's defense is a defense that the plaintiff's right to claim payment of annual leave allowances has already expired by expiration of the three-year extinctive prescription. Thus, the right to use annual leave is finally acquired in return for the worker's completion of prescribed work for one-year period. Thus, where a labor relationship is terminated due to reasons, such as retirement, etc. before the worker acquires the annual leave after acquiring the right to claim payment of annual leave allowances, the right to use the annual leave based on the existence of the labor relationship terminates.

Even if the employment relationship remains, the right to claim annual leave allowances which are not premised on the existence of the employment relationship remains, so an employee can claim annual leave allowances equivalent to the whole number of annual leave days which have not been used until the termination of the employment relationship, and Supreme Court Decision 2005 May 27, 2005.