beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) concluded a labor contract with the Defendant to pay E and retirement allowances in advance by dividing them into monthly pay around January 1, 2007, and accordingly, paid retirement allowances in installments to E, there is no unpaid retirement allowances.
In addition, the defendant believed that he paid all retirement allowances and did not pay retirement allowances to E, and there was no intention to commit a violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.
2. Where the employer and the employee agreed to pay in advance a certain amount of money with the monthly salary or daily allowance paid by the employee (hereinafter “retirement allowance installment agreement”), the agreement is null and void in violation of Article 8 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, since the employee waives his/her right to claim a retirement allowance accrued at the time of the final retirement unless it is acknowledged as an interim settlement of accounts for retirement benefits under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the same Act. As a result, even if the employer paid the employee a certain amount of money under the name of the retirement allowance under the agreement for the division of retirement allowances
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90706 Decided May 20, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90706, May 20, 201). Meanwhile, if there are grounds to dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay a retirement allowance, it is difficult to recognize that an employer had intentionally
Whether there is any ground for dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay retirement allowances shall be determined in light of all the circumstances at the time of dispute over the reason for refusal of payment, the ground for such obligation, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the business purpose, and the existence and scope of such obligation.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1539 Decided June 28, 2007, etc.).