Extinctive Prescription of Claim for Retirement Allowance

Retirement allowance is a wage under Article 18 of the Labor Standards Act, since it has the nature of a later-paid wage paid to an employee upon termination of a labor contract. Therefore, a claim for retirement allowance is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of Article 41 of the Labor Standards Act.

Article 18 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 41 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da2408 delivered on March 16, 1969 (Article 41(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 41(1)160 of the Labor Standards Act, 17 ①313)

Plaintiff

Busan Metropolitan City

Busan District Court (82 Gohap743)

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,449,960 won with 25 percent interest per annum from the day following the service of the copy of the gushesheet to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay 3,203,471 won to the plaintiff.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On November 1, 1954, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff continued to serve as miscellaneous staff members of the Dong National School from Defendant 1 to 15, and retired on December 31, 1981, and that the Defendant would be paid KRW 4,49,960 under the Labor Standards Act. As such, the Plaintiff’s testimony was presumed to have been made, as it is an official document, No. 1, No. 7-1, No. 7-2, and No. 1, No. 7-2, and the lower court’s testimony for each of the testimony of the following 1, No. 7-1, No. 9, and No. 1, No. 7-2, No. 9, and No. 1, No. 1, 5, and No. 1, 1954, and the Plaintiff continued to serve as miscellaneous staff members of the Dong National School from Defendant 1 to 5-2, and there was no other dispute between Defendant 1 and 5-2, respectively.

The defendant's defense that the plaintiff's right to claim retirement allowances for his previous service prior to June 25, 1957 expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription. Thus, under Article 18 of the Labor Standards Act, the "wages" refers to all money or goods paid by the employer to the worker as wages, salary and any other name, regardless of the name of the worker. In general, the labor contract includes the matters concerning retirement allowances in terms of the working conditions, and in principle, the retirement allowances are continuously paid to the worker at the time of the termination of the labor contract, and the nature of the later unpaid wages is regarded as wages under Article 18 of the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, the right to claim retirement allowances shall be deemed as having taken the short-term extinctive prescription of Article 41 of the Labor Standards Act for the three-year period under Article 41 of the same Act. Since it is clear that the date on which the plaintiff was dismissed was on June 25, 1957, the date on which the plaintiff was dismissed is on February 18, 1982, the plaintiff's right to claim retirement allowances from December 16, 195.

If so, the plaintiff's right to claim retirement allowance for service between November 1, 1954 and June 25, 1957 has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and the plaintiff's service between December 31, 1981 and December 31, 1981 cannot be claimed for retirement allowance payment against the defendant for his service during the above period. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for objection is unfair and dismissed. Since the judgment of the court below is unfair with different conclusions, the part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Ansan-il (Presiding Judge)