logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.12.01 2015다244333
퇴직연금반환 등 청구
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion regarding the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (hereinafter "Retirement Benefits Act"),

A. The purpose of the Retirement Benefits Act is to contribute to the stable livelihood security of workers by prescribing matters necessary for the establishment and operation of the employee retirement benefit scheme (Article 1). The term “worker” in the same Act refers to a worker under Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act (Article 2 Subparag. 1); and the term “benefit” in the same Act refers to a retirement benefit scheme or a pension or a lump-sum payment paid to an employee under an individual retirement plan under Article 25.

(Article 2 subparag. 5). Therefore, considering the legislative intent of the Act and the language of each provision, Article 7(1) of the Retirement Benefits Act stipulating that “the right to receive benefits of a retirement pension plan shall not be transferred or provided as security,” applies only to employees under Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act, and does not apply to the representative director of a corporation that does not fall under a worker under the Labor Standards Act

B. The lower court acknowledged that the Plaintiff, from around 2002, served as the representative director in Nonparty B Co., Ltd. (formerly: C Co.), subscribed to the Defendant’s defined contribution retirement pension (hereinafter “instant retirement pension”), and applied for the payment of the instant retirement pension in lump sum to the Defendant after retirement from the Nonparty Co., Ltd., the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s loan obligations; (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s loan obligations, the Defendant made a claim against the Plaintiff as an automatic claim; and (c) paid only the remainder by offsetting the claim for the instant retirement pension claimed by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant offset”); and (d) Article 7(1) of the Retirement Benefits Act applies to the Plaintiff’s retirement pension claim against the Defendant by appointing the representative director who

arrow