Cases where interim retirement is valid due to interim settlement of retirement allowances;

If an employee retires from his previous company immediately after receiving a retirement allowance, and immediately retires from his previous company as a member of the company merged with the previous company, the above interim retirement was determined in consideration of his respective free will by taking into account the profit and loss of the employee. In order to prevent the mass loss of workers due to the aggravation of management balance, the above interim retirement was determined in consideration of the worker’s free will. In order to improve the financial structure of the previous company’s management balance and to prevent the mass loss of workers, the employee’s acceptance of it after improving the financial structure and then made the employee company take over it more favorable or unreasonable treatment to the employee, and thus, the purpose of avoiding the Labor Standards Act is to be against the good faith principle, social justice, and equity, so long as it is not recognized that the above interim retirement payment under the above interim retirement payment is contrary to the Labor Standards Act, and thus, it cannot be said that it is invalid.

Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act

Kim Jong-sik et al.

Incheon Steel Corporation

Incheon District Court of the first instance (90 Gohap17064)

1. Revocation of the part against the defendant among the original judgment, and the plaintiffs' claims against the above revocation are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances shall be borne;

From July 14, 1987, 1987, the defendant paid the amount of 1,632,881 won to the plaintiff Kim Jong-sik, 3,831, 339 won to the defendant Kim Jong-tae, 5,434,878 won to the Cho Jong-ju, 5,434,878 won to the Cho Jong-gu, 5,948,673 won to the Kim Jong-sik, 5,948,673 won to the plaintiff Kim Jong-sik, 1988, from February 6, 1988 for the above Article, from August 21, 198 for the Kim Jong-ju, from February 20, 198 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case from July 15, 1989 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, 25 percent per annum, and 25 percent per annum.

The same shall apply to the order.

The plaintiffs were employed by being employed on the date indicated in the annexed Form 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") for the non-party 2, the defendant company submitted a resignation on March 30, 1985 as a result of the merger of the non-party company, and received each of the money listed in the annexed Form 5 (hereinafter referred to as the "first retirement allowance") from the non-party company to the retirement allowance until that time. The non-party company received the amount listed in the annexed Form 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "second retirement allowance") from the defendant company as retirement allowance from March 31, 1985 to the above retirement allowance from the defendant company as stated in the annexed Form 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "second retirement allowance"). The fact that the method of calculating the retirement allowance of the non-party company or the defendant company was fixed in 30 days of average wage at the time of retirement in one year of continuous service is not clearly disputed between the parties or is not clearly disputed between the parties.

As the cause of the instant claim, labor relations between the Plaintiffs and the non-party company will be maintained by succession to the defendant company. The plaintiffs' declaration of intention to retire together with the submission of the non-party company's resignation on March 30, 1985, which is the date of the merger. Therefore, the plaintiffs continued to engage in labor relations without being cut off from the defendant company's entry into the non-party company until their retirement. As such, the non-party company's retirement pay for the non-party company's total amount of 1 and 2 retirement pay out to the non-party company as stated in attached Form 4 (7) which was calculated by adding up the period of work from the date of entry into the non-party company to the retirement company's retirement pay to the non-party company's non-party 1 and the non-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party-party-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party.

In light of the above facts, since the method of calculating retirement allowances of the non-party company or the defendant company was fixed for 30 days each time of retirement at the time of retirement, not by the number of years of service, but by the average wage at the time of retirement, the plaintiffs decided to receive retirement allowances at the time of retirement at the time of retirement at the non-party company in reality after settling accounts in the non-party company and receiving retirement allowances at the defendant company in the future, and at the time of retirement at the defendant company in the future, they decided to take account of their free will and understanding loss. (1) It rather than that (2) at the time of taking into account the circumstances of the parties, it would be more beneficial to the plaintiffs, and (3) this was aimed at avoiding the Labor Standards Act. Thus, insofar as it is not recognized that it would be against the good faith principle, social justice, and equity, the plaintiffs' expression of intent on March 30, 1985 was based on a voluntary change in the employment contract between the non-party company and the defendant company without any justifiable reason.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are all reasonable, and they are dismissed. Accordingly, the original judgment which has different conclusions is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the part against the defendant among the original judgment is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Sung (Presiding Judge)