1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,012,435 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 15, 2012 to June 4, 2013, and the next day.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 17, 1970, the Plaintiff was temporarily employed by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (the Defendant bank is a company established by dividing the credit business portion from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation on March 2, 2012) which is the telegraph of the Defendant bank, and applied for and passed an application for the special job refund notice, which was enforced at the time when he was working in the literature-gun Agricultural Cooperative, and became a special employee as of July 22, 1974, and thereafter became a full-time employee as of October 1, 1979.

B. On August 3, 200, the Plaintiff filed an interim settlement of the retirement allowance (from July 22, 1974 to July 31, 200). Around that time, the Plaintiff received retirement allowance of KRW 90,123,871 from the Defendant for the aforementioned settlement period.

C. On June 30, 2012, the Plaintiff received retirement allowances after the aforementioned settlement period.

At the time, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff was employed on July 2, 1974, and calculated retirement allowances and annual leave compensation after the aforementioned period of settlement. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 39,583,475 as retirement allowances for the period of service from March 17, 1970 to July 21, 1974 and KRW 4,428,960 as annual leave compensation for the period of service from March 17, 201 to March 16, 201.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul’s evidence No. 6, Eul’s evidence No. 7-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Even if the type of employment provided during the continuous service period is changed, such as the case where a temporary employee was employed and served as a regular employee during the interim period of employment without a blank space, the period of service as a temporary employee and the period of service as a regular employee should be deemed the period of service calculated by adding up the period of service as a regular employee.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da19366 delivered on September 5, 1997. Based on the above legal principles, the Plaintiff was employed temporarily on March 17, 1970.