All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

Plaintiff .

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification and addition of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this shall be quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The part of the “Determination on the Plaintiffs’ Claim” from 8th to 18th, as follows, is amended to the effect that the intermediate settlement of this case is null and void: (b) the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the interim settlement of this case is invalid is based on the use of the Plaintiffs’ retirement allowance in the form of interim settlement of retirement pay as capital increase in the company; and (c) the interim settlement of this case is null and void without the Plaintiffs’ consent or consent based on the determination of the Plaintiffs’ intention or decision. Therefore, the non-lied special agreement on the merits

First, we examine whether the consent of the plaintiffs was defective according to their individual and free will with respect to the interim settlement of this case.

Article 8(2) of the former Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter “former Retirement Benefits Act”) provides that “An employer may, upon a request of a worker, settle accounts of retirement allowances for the period during which the worker has continued to work in advance before his/her retirement.”

In full view of the legislative intent of the retirement allowance system and the nature of the retirement allowance, etc., if an agreement on interim settlement of the retirement allowance is reached according to the free will of an individual worker, the interim settlement of the retirement allowance is not valid only when an employee actively demands interim settlement of the retirement allowance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da48891 Decided December 26, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da41045 Decided October 25, 2012). The following circumstances, i.e., the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the above basic facts and the evidence mentioned above.