The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal by misunderstanding legal principles

A. If an employer and an employee agreed to pay in advance a certain amount of money as retirement allowances with the monthly payment of the monthly payment (hereinafter “retirement allowance installment agreement”), such agreement is null and void in violation of Article 8 of the Act, which is a mandatory law, since an 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 payment of retirement allowances under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act (hereinafter “Act”). As a result, even if an employer paid an employee a certain amount of money under the name of retirement allowances according to the agreement on the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90760, May 20, 2010). Examining the record in light of such legal principles, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that even if the Defendant agreed to divide the retirement allowance with D and actually paid the money in the name of the retirement allowance, the payment of the retirement allowance cannot be deemed to have been made within the pertinent period, on the grounds that the Defendant did not pay the money in the name of the retirement allowance after undergoing the effective interim settlement procedure of

B. On the other hand, if there are grounds for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay retirement allowances, it is difficult to recognize that the employer had the intent to commit the breach of duty to pay retirement allowances within the due date, since the employer has considerable grounds for not paying

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 the reasons for refusal of payment by the employer, the grounds for such obligation, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, the business purpose, and other circumstances at the time of dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation

Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1539 Decided June 28, 2007