beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Plaintiff
A Of the lawsuits in A, a claim for a paid leave allowance in 2010.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the main defense of this case
A. The Defendant’s assertion that: (a) confirmed on behalf of the Plaintiffs, around April 18, 201, that Plaintiff A received all of the statutory retirement allowances and statutory paid leave allowances that occurred from the date of entry to the end of April 2010 on behalf of the Plaintiffs; and (b) promised not to raise a civil or criminal objection regarding retirement allowances and paid leave; and (c) accordingly, the instant lawsuit by the Plaintiffs is unlawful contrary to the foregoing non-committee agreement.
B. Examining the legitimacy of the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff A, and adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statement in the evidence No. 10, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff prepared and issued to the Defendant on April 18, 2011 a written confirmation that “The Plaintiff received the full amount of statutory retirement allowances and paid leave allowances incurred from the date of admission to the National Assembly by the end of April 18, 2010, and would not raise any civil or criminal objection related thereto.” As such, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for paid leave allowances in 2010 among the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff A is unlawful contrary to the foregoing written special agreement to the lawsuit
(A) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s claim for retirement allowance for the remaining part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for the payment of paid leave allowance for the year 2010, and the claim for retirement allowance for the payment of paid leave allowance for the period of 2010 cannot be deemed null and void on the sole basis of the above circumstances. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff agreed not to raise any civil objection with respect to the legal paid leave allowance for the year 201, which occurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff would not raise any objection with respect to the legal paid leave allowance for the period of 2011, and on the other hand, the retirement allowance for the period of 2010 was paid to the retired employee as compensation for the continuous work and paid as compensation for the continuous work.