1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's ground for the claim of this case is recorded in the annexed complaint's ground for claim.

(2) On February 21, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff retired on February 21, 2013 while working in the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff sought a total of KRW 131,724,818, and damages for delay from February 22, 2013, which is the following day after retirement (the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for delay).

A. The Defendant’s instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of the extinctive prescription period of three years from the date on which the Plaintiff’s claim for retirement benefits occurred (the retirement date, February 21, 2013), and even if the Plaintiff’s claim is recognized, it is examined as a defense that the said claim expired due to the completion of the extinctive prescription.

B. On February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff dismissed from office as of September 1998, and the Defendant opened the disciplinary personnel committee on February 21, 2013 and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff (the grounds for the disciplinary action are related to the conclusion of a false debt collection delegation contract in the course of being delegated to the Plaintiff’s debt collection by U.S. P. C. in relation to the Plaintiff’s business.

(2) The Plaintiff’s request for remedy against unfair dismissal and administrative litigation were made to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by using administrative remedy procedures against the above disciplinary dismissal, but was rejected. In other words, the Plaintiff filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission on September 25, 2013, but was dismissed in the review decision by the National Labor Relations Commission. In other words, on November 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the said decision by the Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap61906, but was sentenced to the judgment against which the Plaintiff’s request was dismissed (Evidence 1-1), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 2, 2014.

C. Determination: One retirement allowance that has expired after the lapse of the extinctive prescription is premised on retirement, and the plaintiff is subject to disciplinary dismissal against the defendant.