1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant stated the plaintiffs in the separate sheet 6 of the claim amount, and the money in the separate sheet.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. Since the primary claim Plaintiffs were employed as an employee under the Labor Standards Act which provides the Defendant with labor, they are obligated to pay retirement allowances and compensation for delay thereof under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act to the Plaintiffs.

B. In this case, in accordance with the facts that the Defendant lost at the higher court of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant was a policy to pay a retirement allowance, and in accordance with such a policy, a judicial confession was established as to the fact that G was holding an explanatory meeting while attending each branch of the Plaintiffs’ retired. Accordingly, around February to April, 2012, an agreement was established to pay a retirement allowance under the condition that “the Defendant would pay a retirement allowance to the Plaintiffs if the Defendant lost at the higher court of the relevant case” between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiffs the agreed amount equivalent to retirement allowances and damages for delay.

3. Judgment as to the main claim

A. According to the facts of the above recognition of the plaintiffs' retirement allowance claim, the defendant company should pay the plaintiffs a retirement allowance to pay the amount as stated in the attached list 6 of the claim amount and damages for delay.

(hereinafter “instant retirement allowance claim”). B.

The defendant's defense of the extinctive prescription defense is a defense that the plaintiffs' retirement allowance claim in this case expired by the extinctive prescription. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the worker's retirement allowance claim is applied to the short-term period of three years pursuant to Article 10 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act. The fact that the termination date of the plaintiffs' work was September 30, 2010 or October 31, 2010 is as mentioned above. The lawsuit in this case is filed.