1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs worked as a street cleaners belonging to Hongsung-gun and worked as a worker of the defendant company, according to the conclusion of the "E contract" with the defendant limited partnership company C (hereinafter "the defendant company") in order to reduce human resources and entrust the private sector to the environment-mination project, the plaintiff has succeeded to the employment of the defendant company on January 3, 1997 and has been working as a worker of the defendant company.

B. On April 10, 2009, the Defendant Company paid to the Plaintiff A retirement allowance of KRW 15,594,155 from January 3, 2007 to December 31, 2008, retirement allowance of KRW 15,581,674, retirement allowance of KRW 557,560 in the year of 2009, and KRW 5,594,580 in the interim retirement allowance from January 3, 201 to December 31, 2008, and the Plaintiffs received the above amount without any special objection.

C. Defendant D is the general partner of Defendant Company.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 2 (including branch numbers), the fact inquiry results against the Hongsung group of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant company paid retirement allowances on the same basis as Hongsung group, and the interim retirement allowances received from the defendant on April 10, 2009 do not meet the criteria for calculating the retirement allowances of Hongsung group, as well as the amount under itself in light of the interim settlement period. Thus, the defendants asserted that the defendant should pay 30,000,000, which is part of the interim retirement allowances that were not paid from January 3, 1997 to December 31, 2008, respectively, to the plaintiff.

In this regard, even if the defendants did not receive the amount due to the interim settlement of retirement allowances, the claims of the plaintiffs for interim retirement allowances have expired three years since April 10, 2009, which was the interim settlement date of retirement allowances, due to the expiration of extinctive prescription. The plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B. We examine the judgment, and according to the above basic facts, April 10, 2009.