1. The defendant,

A. Plaintiffs B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and L are the corresponding money in the “request amount” column of the attached Table, and the said money.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a public corporation established for the purpose of performing projects that contribute to the stabilization of national livelihood and the promotion of welfare under the National Pension Act upon the entrustment of the Minister of Health and Welfare. The Plaintiffs are those who were employed at Grade I or II in the Defendant and were retired (Plaintiff K was retired on December 31, 2018; Plaintiff L retired on June 30, 2019) before retirement, and are subject to the annual salary system.

B. From January 1, 2016, the Defendant enforced the wage peak system, and accordingly, the first and second-class workers were paid an amount calculated by applying the payment rate of 75% for the first year (the period from the day following the second year before the retirement date to the retirement date) based on the total amount of wages received for 12 months immediately before the application of the wage peak system (hereinafter “crow wage”), and the second year (the period from the day after the retirement date to the retirement date) by applying the payment rate of 70% for the second year (the reduction of 30% based on the crow wage).

C. Meanwhile, when a worker files an application for interim settlement of retirement pay, the Defendant paid interim settlement of retirement pay calculated by applying the cream wage as average wage before and after the application of the wage peak system, and paid interim settlement of retirement pay calculated by applying the reduced wage as average wage after the application of the wage peak system. The wage, which forms the basis for calculating the above average wage, did not include management evaluation performance rating.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Although the Plaintiffs’ assertion management evaluation performance rating is included in the wages that are the basis for the calculation of average wages, the Defendant calculated the interim settlement of retirement allowances by excluding the management evaluation performance rating from the wages that are the basis for the calculation of average wages, and paid it to the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, the defendant.