[1] The validity of an agreement to waive a claim for retirement allowance in advance, and whether it is permissible to waive a claim for retirement allowance occurred at the time of retirement in a situation where a worker retires and has no labor contract relations (affirmative)

[2] The method of interpreting a juristic act in a case where the meaning is not clearly disclosed in the language and text expressed by the party

[3] In a case where Party A received money in the name of payment of unpaid benefits and retirement allowances, etc. for about 10 months after he/she retired from office after being employed by Company B, and written and delivered a letter of commitment that “I would not demand any more additional amount since all of the salaries (including retirement allowances) were adjusted to ears,” the case affirming the judgment below holding that Party B did not have a duty to pay retirement allowances, on the ground that Party A’s right to claim retirement allowances arising from his/her retirement should be deemed to have been renounced later through the letter of commitment

[1] The amount of retirement allowances is equivalent to the amount of wages that an employer has paid to a retired employee for a certain period of continuous service and that the specific claim for retirement allowances is a requirement that the employment relationship is terminated. The waiver of the claim for retirement allowances that occurs at the time of the final retirement is invalid because it is in violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, which are mandatory laws. However, it is allowed to waive the claim for retirement allowances that occurred at the time of retirement in a situation where the employee is no longer in a labor contract, and such an agreement does not violate the mandatory laws

[2] Interpretation of a juristic act is clearly confirming the meaning that the party gave to an act of representation. In a case where the meaning is not clearly revealed in the language and text expressed by the party, it shall be reasonably interpreted according to logical and empirical rules, common sense of society, and common sense of transaction, by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, motive and background of the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent of the party to be achieved by the juristic act

[3] In a case where Party A received money in the name of payment of unpaid benefits and retirement allowances, etc. for about ten (10) months after he/she retired from office after being employed by Company B, and written and delivered a written statement stating that “I would not demand any more additional amount since he/she arranged all wages (including retirement allowances) that I would not demand any more additional amount, the case affirming the judgment below that Party A was not obligated to pay retirement allowances after the date of retirement in light of the preparation process and text of each written statement, as well as the confirmation that Party A renounced his/her right to claim retirement allowances after the lapse of several (10) months from the date of retirement, it should be deemed that Party A waived his/her right to claim retirement allowances after the date of retirement

[1] Article 34 of the Labor Standards Act, Articles 8 (1) and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 34 of the Labor Standards Act, Articles 8 (1) and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da11133 delivered on November 28, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 49) Supreme Court Decision 97Da49732 delivered on March 27, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1190) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da16049 delivered on October 25, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3422)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) (Law Firm A&C, Attorneys Hong Hong-hoon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Hanyang Engineering Co., Ltd.

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2017Na2180, 2197 decided January 10, 2018

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. A. Retirement pay is an amount having the nature of a later-paid wage paid to an employee who has been employed for a certain period of continuous service and has the nature of a subsequent payment for his/her continuous service, and specific claim for retirement pay arises under the condition that the employment relationship is terminated. The waiver of a claim for retirement pay arising at the time of final retirement is null and void in violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da49732, Mar. 27, 1998, etc.). However, waiver of a claim for retirement pay at the time of retirement is allowed to be made later in the absence of a labor contract, and such an agreement does not violate the mandatory provisions (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da1133, Nov. 28, 1997, etc.).

B. Interpretation of a juristic act is clearly confirming the meaning that the party gave to the expression of the juristic act. If its meaning is not clearly revealed in the language and text expressed by the party, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, common sense of society and transaction norms, by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, motive and background of the juristic act, the purpose and true intent of the party to achieve the juristic act, transaction practices, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da16049 delivered on October 25, 196, etc.).

2. According to the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

A. On April 1, 2003, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was employed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) engaging in the construction design business, and retired on December 31, 2013.

B. On January 7, 2008, the Plaintiff drafted an annual salary contract with the Defendant as follows. As to the retirement pay, the Plaintiff determined that “monthly payment included in the basic pay” and “retirement pay shall be paid at the time when the contract term of this contract expires by the employer and the employee’s agreement, or our country’s payment shall be included in the monthly payment.”

C. From the retirement to October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 11,80,000 from the Defendant as the name of unpaid benefits and retirement allowances. On October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff drafted and issued to the Defendant a letter stating, “I will promise I will not demand any further additional amount because I have arranged all the salaries (including retirement allowances) sealed to I return to I on October 8, 2014,” and submit it (hereinafter “each letter of this case”).

3. The lower court determined that the Defendant was not obligated to pay a retirement allowance to the Plaintiff, since it did not confirm that the Plaintiff renounced the right to claim a retirement allowance by means of the instant written statement, in light of the developments leading up to, and the text and text of, the preparation of the instant written statement, including the Plaintiff’s writing on October 8, 2014, which was several months from the date of retirement, and that the Plaintiff was unaware of the right to claim a retirement allowance. Furthermore, the lower court concluded that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not confirm the phrase “brut pay (including retirement allowances)” in the instant written statement and

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

4. The Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)