(a) In case where a worker actually continues to work and takes the form of appointment again after retirement, the validity of the expression of intention to retire;

B. In the above case, the validity of the agreement that received retirement benefits on the basis of only the service period after the retirement in the above form, in the case of settling accounts for retirement benefits until the retirement in the form of a formal retirement.

A. Even if a worker continues to work on behalf of the same business owner for a certain period and takes the form of a new appointment by treating him/her as a retirement once again in order to take charge of the business in which the amount of high wages is paid for a certain period of time, the expression of his/her intention of retirement should be deemed null and void as

B. In a case where, due to the foregoing reasons, if an employee agreed to receive retirement benefits on the basis of only the period of service after the aforementioned type of retirement when he/she actually received retirement benefits by settling accounts until the time of his/her free will, such agreement would not be deemed null and void if the total sum of the amount of retirement benefits received by interim settlement and the amount of retirement benefits to be received at the time of actual retirement pursuant to the said agreement does not exceed the amount of retirement benefits received by the employee while continuing to engage in the previous business without having to receive high-amount wages in the form of retirement in order to receive them, as seen earlier,

Article 108(1) of the Civil Act, Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other plaintiffs' attorney-at-law

Donga Construction Industry Co., Ltd., Counsel for the full-time and full-time absence of authority

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na2792 Decided February 21, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Determination on ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff 1 was employed by the defendant company for the above facts-finding period and received 2,131,255 won as retirement allowances up to May 25, 1978, and then he was employed by the defendant company for 2 years following the two-year period after he was employed by the defendant company as an employee of the defendant company by submitting a resignation notice, 2,736,925 won as retirement allowances, and the defendant company received 1,545,156 won as retirement allowances up to 3 years after he was employed by the defendant company for the above facts-finding period, and then submitted a resignation notice to the defendant company for 19 years after he was employed by the defendant company for the above facts-finding period and received 1,904,35 won as retirement allowances up to 196 days after he was employed by the defendant company for 3 years after he was employed by the defendant company, and the defendant company received 1,984,35 won as retirement allowances up to 196 days after being employed by the plaintiff 2.

In addition, even if a worker continues to work for the same business owner, while performing his/her duties for a certain period of time, treats him/her as a temporary retirement, and takes the form of appointment again, his/her intention of retirement would be null and void as a false representation with a prior agreement. However, in cases where the worker actually receives retirement benefits up to the date of his/her free will and actually retires from his/her office, such agreement was concluded to receive retirement benefits on the basis of only the period of service after the aforementioned type of retirement, if the total sum of the amount of retirement benefits paid after the interim payment pursuant to the agreement and the amount of retirement benefits received at the time of the actual retirement is smaller than that of the retirement benefits received at the time of his/her previous business without being paid a high amount of wages, it shall be deemed null and void. Thus, the court below's determination that the retirement benefits calculation method of the defendant company was just and void as it did not constitute an unlawful determination that the plaintiffs' retirement benefits payment method was set at 30 days per year average wages at the time of continuous service, and it shall be deemed that the plaintiffs were paid retirement benefits in the form or form of retirement benefits.

2. Determination on the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim for overtime work allowance on the ground that the provisions of Article 49 subparagraph 4 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are not applied to those who were in a supervisory or management position under Article 49 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 36 of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act regarding overtime work hours and holiday work in the above period, and the fact-finding and decision of the court below are justified and there is no error of law as pointed out in the arguments, since the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are justified and there is no error of law as pointed out in the arguments.

3. The plaintiffs filed an appeal even with regard to the claim for annual allowances, but there was no submission of any ground of appeal as to this part. Therefore, this part of the appeal is without merit.

4. Accordingly, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)