1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The plaintiff asserted that he was retired while serving in the defendant company, and did not receive retirement allowances of 18,727,397 from the defendant.

The retirement allowance claimed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was provided as the amount deducted from the Plaintiff’s pay, and the Defendant did not pay the retirement allowance.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay retirement allowance of 18,727,397 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of each entry and pleading in Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including Serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff was working for the defendant company from August 17, 2009 to August 31, 2015. However, the defendant applied for approval of the final and conclusive female retirement pension plan (DC type) on January 7, 2009 to the Daegu District Office of the Daegu District of the Korea Labor Agency. The plaintiff submitted an application to the Daegu District of the Korea District of the Daegu District of the Korea Labor Agency on March 23, 2010. The plaintiff submitted an application to the Daegu District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Korea District of the Daegu District of the Korea.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as above, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 9 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant paid retirement allowances to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the above argument of the first-party plaintiff is without merit to examine it.

① From January 1, 2009, the Defendant appears to have subscribed to the defined contribution retirement pension for all workers of the Defendant Company from January 1, 2009, and paid the charges prescribed in the above regulations to the retirement pension depository.

② The contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be entered into.