2019 Ghana 14560 Wages

【Plaintiff】

Ilsan City

Human Resources Development Service

Ulsan Central District Court Decision 345 Doz. 345

Representative Director

Law Firm Doz.

January 15, 2021

February 5, 2021

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 9,253,121 won with 20% interest per annum from January 16, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Status and duties of the plaintiff;

1) On July 1, 1980, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant and retired from office on December 31, 2016. 2) The Plaintiff served as the head of a branch office of the Defendant’s ○○ branch office as the first class in general service from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016. From July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff received the Defendant’s public service training as the first class in general service as the Defendant’s head of ○○ branch office as the first class in general service.

(b) Alteration of a retirement allowance system;

On December 28, 1999, the defendant abolished the retirement allowance progressive system from January 1, 200, and agreed to introduce the retirement allowance system provided for in the Labor Standards Act [average wage for one month of continuous employment (1 month of continuous employment (30 days) per year). Thereafter, on January 200, the defendant has sought opinions as to the employees' consent to the above changes in the retirement allowance system for each affiliated regional head office, regional pre-employment school, and local office. As a result, with the consent of 1,360 out of total number of employees belonging to the defendant, the retirement allowance payment system was revised from the progressive system to the statutory retirement allowance system.

1) On September 22, 2015, the Defendant agreed to implement an agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”) to implement the branches of the Korea Labor-Related and Labor-Related Workers’ Labor Union Branch (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trade union”) composed of more than a majority of the Defendant’s employees on September 2, 2015 under the Act on the Recommendation of the Wage Reduction System of Public Institutions to reduce the burden of elderly employees and employees in the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and to promote youth employment from January 1, 2016 and the wage peak system (the retirement rate of 15% before three years before the date of retirement, 20% before the two years of retirement, and 25% before the one year).

2) In accordance with the agreement of this case, the Defendant established the operating guidelines for the wage peak system (hereinafter referred to as the "operation guidelines of this case") and enforced the wage peak system (hereinafter referred to as the " wage peak system of this case") from January 1, 2016. The important contents of the operation guidelines of this case are as follows.

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of these Guidelines is to provide for all matters concerning the operation of the wage peak system of the Human Resources Development Service of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") pursuant to Article 5 of the Remuneration Regulations. The definition of terms used in this Guidelines shall be as follows: 1. The term "workers' wage peak system" means the workers who have reached the standard for application of the wage peak system in consideration of the arrival, productivity, etc. of a certain age and adjusts wages based on such standard. 2. The term "workers subject to the wage peak system" means those who have reached the standard for application of the wage peak system. With respect to the operation of Article 3 (Scope of Application), it shall be subject to this Guidelines except as otherwise provided for in the Acts and subordinate statutes, the articles of incorporation, and the regulations. Article 4 (Time of Application) The period of application of the wage peak system shall be determined as follows. 3 years before the scheduled date of retirement under Article 7 (Calculation and Payment of Wage Wages System).

D. Defendant’s remuneration regulations and personnel regulations

1) The Defendant’s remuneration regulations and the main contents of the Enforcement Rule of the annual salary system are as follows.

(1) The purpose of this Chapter I of the Regulations on Remuneration is to prescribe matters concerning the remuneration of executives and employees. Except as otherwise provided for in Article 2 (Scope of Application), the definitions of the terms used in this Article shall be as follows. 1. The term "wages" means the total amount of basic annual salaries and performance-based salaries, and the term "basic annual salaries" means the total amount of annual salaries and performance-based salaries, and the term "monthly salary" means the total amount of monthly salaries paid, which is calculated by dividing the basic annual salaries by 12. The term "monthly salary" means the basic annual salary which is paid monthly in the relevant position and position and individual performance. The term "basic annual salary" means the annual salary which is paid in the form of 14 (Allowance recognized by Acts and subordinate statutes) by adding up the annual salary and performance-based annual salary of individual workers to the annual salary which is to be paid in consideration of the annual salary and the annual salary of individual workers. Article 14 (Scope of Application) shall be paid within the period of time, holidays, night, day-day allowances, annual allowances, and other basic salary allowances.

2) Of the Defendant’s personnel regulations, the contents of the instant case are as follows.

With respect to the personnel management of employees under Article 4 (Scope of Application) of the Personnel Regulations, this Regulation excludes those specifically prescribed by other internal regulations.An employee of Article 38 (Measures against his Will) shall not be subject to disadvantageous measures, such as leave of absence, demotion, dismissal, etc. against his will, unless by a sentence, disciplinary action, or any reason prescribed by this Regulation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9, 18, 19, 20, 36, 37, Eul 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to a claim for difference of wages based on the fact that the wage peak system is not applicable

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the operating guidelines of this case, which served as the basis for enforcing the wage peak system of this case, are invalid for the following reasons, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 17,114,760 won, which is the difference in the wages paid to the plaintiff if the wage peak system of this case was not enforced, and delay damages therefor.

① Under the instant operational guidelines, workers, including the Plaintiff, subject to the annual salary system of Grades 1 and 2, including the Plaintiff, suffered disadvantage in wage reduction. Nevertheless, the instant operational guidelines are not effective against the Plaintiff, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant failed to properly implement the collective consent procedures of the employees by coercion, such as being urged to undergo a proper explanation procedure related to the introduction of the wage peak system, and the employees subject to the annual salary system, which are not those entitled to join a trade union (application of salary system), are different from the labor union members, and thus, the instant operational guidelines are not binding on the employees subject to the annual salary system.

② In light of the fact that there is no transitional measures related to workers who will retire within the nearest period of the operating guidelines of this case, the application period and reduction rate of the wage peak system in comparison with other public agencies, there is no record of joint promotion by labor and management, there is no evidence to acknowledge the serious urgent reason for the introduction of the wage peak system, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a serious reason for the wage for the introduction of the wage peak system, etc., the operating guidelines of this case violates Article 4-4 (1) of the Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment and Elderly Employment Promotion (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Prohibition of Age Discrimination in Employment").

B. Determination

1) Whether procedural requirements for amendment to rules of employment are met

A) Relevant legal principles

In principle, since an employer has the authority to draft and revise the rules of employment, an employer may prepare and amend the rules of employment according to his/her intent. However, in order to unilaterally amend the existing rules of employment to disadvantage workers, the consent by collective decision-making method of a group of workers under the previous rules of employment is required. Therefore, the consent method requires the consent of the labor union if there exists a labor union consisting of more than half of the workers, and the consent of a majority of the workers if there is no such labor union, and the majority of workers here refers to the majority of the group of workers under the existing rules of employment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da85997, Feb. 29, 20

In addition, a trade union organized by a majority of workers refers to a trade union organized by a majority of all workers who are not qualified as a majority of workers from among those who are subject to the previous rules of employment, and it does not mean a trade union organized by a majority of workers who are qualified as a majority of workers from among those who are subject to the previous rules of employment. Thus, if a trade union is approved by a majority of all workers who are subject to the previous rules of employment after amending the existing rules of employment to reduce their retirement age, the amendment to the rules of employment affects a trade union with a legitimate and effective status, and even those who are subject to the previous rules of employment, although they are not qualified to join a trade union with a certain class or a certain status, they have its effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

In addition, even if a number of workers group is within a single working condition system, if only a certain group of workers is directly disadvantaged at the time of the unfavorable revision of the rules of employment, if it is anticipated that the revised rules of employment will be applied to other workers group, including not only some group of workers, but also those group of workers who are expected to be subject to the revised rules of employment in the future, which is expected to be subject to the application of the revised rules of employment. In addition, if there is no other worker group that is expected to be subject to the revised rules of employment in addition to those group of workers who are subject to the revised rules of employment because working conditions are dualized and are not directly disadvantaged, only the workers group subject to the amended rules of employment are subject to consent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da49377, Nov. 12, 2009; 2009Du2238, May 28, 2009).

B) In the instant case

① The Defendant’s remuneration regulations or personnel regulations do not provide for separate application of the annual salary system to the employees subject to the annual salary system and the employees subject to the salary system. ② Even if the Plaintiff’s remuneration regulations also provide for the Defendant’s executives and employees as annual salary system, even if there exist the employees subject to the salary system, the salary system and the annual salary system merely vary depending on the method of paying wages to the employees, and it is difficult to view that the labor conditions system differs solely on the sole ground that both are different in the calculation system, and it is difficult to deem that the labor conditions themselves are dualized. ③ Since the Defendant’s employees might be promoted to higher class according to the evaluation of labor within the same occupational group, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be readily concluded that there is no possibility that the wage peak system of class 1 and class 2 employees would be applied to the employees of class 3, as the Plaintiff

In light of the fact that it is reasonable to view that the part concerning workers of Grade 2 or higher in the wage peak system is expected to be applied indirectly and potentially to workers of Grade 3 or lower, since it is subject to the wage peak system for workers of Grade 2 or higher in the future, even though not only those of Grade 1 or 2 already reached at the time of the enforcement of the wage peak system but also those of Grade 1 or 2 are promoted to Grade 2 or higher in the future, it is reasonable to view that the part regarding workers of Grade 2 or higher in the wage peak system constitutes a case where the implementation of the wage peak system is expected to be applied indirectly or potentially, as a whole. In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 2 or higher in the annual salary system of Grade 3 or lower in the salary grade system of Grade 3 is a group of workers within a single working condition system and thus, even if the Plaintiff

Ultimately, since the labor union of this case, in which the majority of the defendant and the employee employed by the defendant, entered into a collective agreement to enforce the wage peak system of this case, the wage peak system of this case satisfies the procedural requirements as legitimate consent to the change of employment rules.

(Other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there was a defect in collective decision-making by a worker, such as receiving a written consent under coercion without taking a proper explanation procedure related to the introduction of the wage peak system, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

2) Whether the instant operational guidelines apply to the Plaintiff who is not a partner

A) Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “an employer shall hear the opinion of a labor union if there is a labor union organized by a majority of workers at the relevant business or workplace, or a majority of workers if there is no labor union organized by a majority of workers.” However, if the rules of employment are modified disadvantageous to workers, it shall be limited to the consent of a labor union.” As a means of establishing a position to decide whether or not to consent to any unfavorable change in the interests of all workers including non-members or a certain group of workers. In accordance with the above provisions of the Labor Standards Act, the unfavorable revision of the rules of employment is effective for both union members and non-members. Even if there are some limitations on the opportunity to reflect the consent or opinion of the small number of workers excluded from the union membership pursuant to the above provisions, it is inevitable in light of the nature of the rules of employment, which is called a uniform and uniform regulation for workers (in light of the independent function of the labor-management relations as an organization representing a group of workers under the labor law, such as the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and the above, it is difficult to readily conclude the agreement between the Plaintiff 1 and the above.

B) The Plaintiff appears to have asserted that the wage peak system in this case is not effective against the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff’s workers of class 2 or higher are not qualified as union members of the instant trade union, and thus the agreement in this case cannot be generally binding.

According to Article 35 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, when the number of workers of the same kind who are ordinarily employed in a business or workplace is subject to a single collective agreement, the said collective agreement shall apply to other workers of the same kind who are employed in the same business or workplace. The "worker of the same kind" subject to the collective agreement refers to a person who is expected to be subject to the agreement under the provisions of the pertinent collective agreement. Meanwhile, a person who is not qualified as a union member under the provisions of the collective agreement is not expected to be subject to the collective agreement, and cannot be said to be a worker of the same kind having the general binding force of the collective agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da63599, Feb. 12, 2004). Thus, it cannot be deemed that the agreement of this case, which is a kind of collective agreement, has a general binding force on workers of the same kind who are not qualified as union members. However, this case's wage peak system is not effective merely by the agreement in this case, and its amendment to the terms of the rules of employment.

C) Ultimately, the instant operational guidelines should be applied to the employees of Class 2 or higher, such as the Plaintiff, who is not a trade union member.

3) Whether the instant operational guidelines are invalid as they violate the Elderly Employment Act

A) Article 4-4(1) of the Act on the Employment of the Aged and the Aged provides that "the employer shall not discriminate against any employee or any person who intends to be an employee on the grounds of age without reasonable grounds in the field of recruitment, employment, wages, payment of money and valuables other than wages, welfare benefits, education and training, placement, transfer, promotion, retirement and dismissal," and Article 4-4(2) of the same Act provides that "in applying Article 4-4(1) to "the case of a result of particular unfavorable to a certain age group without reasonable grounds, it shall be deemed that the employer is

B) Relevant legal principles

An employer shall not discriminate against a worker on the ground of gender, nationality, religion, or social status (Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act). The term "discriminatory treatment" means that an employer treats a worker unfavorably without any justifiable reason in terms of wages, other working conditions, etc. The term "cases where there is no justifiable reason" refers to cases where the method, degree, etc. of treating the worker in question is not recognized or otherwise treating the worker in question. The employer shall pay the same wage for the same-value work within the same business. The term "work of the same value" refers to cases where the worker in question is deemed to have the same value in essence by objective work evaluation, etc. even if the work in question is identical or almost different in nature from one another in terms of work in the same workplace, and whether the same value is an same should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the criteria such as technology, effort, responsibility and working conditions required for performing his/her duties, and educational background, career, continuous service period, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du46315, Mar. 14, 2019).

The Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “Period Employment Act”) provides for the prohibition of discrimination against workers in employment relationship with the Act on the Protection, etc. of Workers in addition to the Act on the Employment of the Aged and Part-Time Workers, and Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Fixed-term Employment Act provides that “discriminatory treatment” is treated unfavorably without any justifiable reason in the matters prescribed by the Act, such as wages. The term “reasonable reason” in this context means that there is no need for different treatment of fixed-term workers, or that even if the necessity for different treatment is recognized, the method, degree, etc. is inappropriate. Furthermore, whether a reasonable reason exists should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the unfavorable treatment in question, the form and scope of employment of workers, the responsibility for determining the terms and conditions of employment, wage and other working conditions, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du207, Sept. 24, 2014).

C) Specific determination

In addition to the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and facts of recognition, Gap 10 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the wage peak system of this case shall not be deemed to have violated the aforementioned Act because it is difficult to deem that it constitutes a case of age discrimination without reasonable grounds.

① The wage peak system of a public institution does not properly reflect the level of productivity by age, etc. due to the public institution’s public order and good order, and in particular, with the revision of the Elderly Employment Act, the increase in the burden of corporate personnel expenses and the decrease in new employment as the retirement age of workers increases from 2016 to 60 years, which led to the occurrence of various problems such as the reduction in new employment. The purpose of this Act is to alleviate the burden of personnel expenses of elderly workers and employees and to create youth jobs. The wage peak system was introduced as part of the maintenance and stability of employment of elderly workers, creation of new jobs and aging society, and to guarantee continuous economic activities by extending or guaranteeing the retirement age, instead of partially reducing the wages of elderly workers, and to provide a reduced new financial job creation with the aim of protecting the lives of all generations by preparing for an aging society and creating youth jobs. This type of wage peak system includes not only the "extension of retirement age under the premise that an employer extends the retirement age of workers," but also the "retirement retirement age for employment" for workers in lieu of the contract retirement age after retirement.

On May 7, 2015, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, through the recommendation of the public institution wage peak system, resolved the increase in the burden of personnel expenses of the public institution through the recommendation of the public institution, promoted employment stability through the extension of the worker's retirement age or guarantee, and recommended the introduction of the wage peak system for all employees in order to increase new employment financial resources for the reduction of the wage peak system. Accordingly, the Defendant established detailed criteria for the application of the wage peak system, and enacted the operating guidelines of this case to apply the "retirement Age Guarantee Wage System" to the labor union and the plaintiff through the agreement of this case. During the process of going through the above procedure, the Plaintiff was able to be informed of the impact and disadvantage of the agreement of this case in advance, and was able to have an opportunity to present some opinions, and the introduction of the wage peak system or the process of this case is not appropriate. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the introduction of this case is proper.

③ As a matter of principle, the determination of working conditions, such as personnel management, transfer, and improvement of wage systems, belongs to the Defendant, who is an employer, the Defendant is unable to make a decision by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances in determining working conditions of workers, and such discretion shall be respected to the extent that it is reasonable. However, since the Defendant introduced the instant wage peak system, which constitutes the change of working conditions, with the consent of the instant trade union after completing all the aforementioned procedures, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant exercised its authority beyond the reasonable discretion

④ According to Article 19-2(1) newly established upon the amendment of the Elderly Employment Act on May 22, 2013, an employer who extends retirement age pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Elderly Employment Act and a trade union consisting of a majority of workers shall take necessary measures, such as reorganization of the wage system, depending on the conditions of the relevant business or workplace. However, the introduction of the wage peak system in this case is based on necessary measures, such as "the reorganization of the wage system," which was established for the purpose of complying with the Elderly Employment Act, with the aim of contributing to the safety of the aged employment and the development of the national economy, by preventing discrimination in employment on the basis of age without reasonable grounds and promoting the employment of the aged to have occupations suitable for their abilities.

⑤ Generally, it is true that the degree of disadvantage of the working conditions, such as the reduction of wages, is greater than other types in the case of the wage peak system, among the types of the wage peak system, in general, the extension of the retirement age without the reduction of wages, ultimately brings about the burden of personnel affairs and the personnel expenses of the company. Therefore, a company ultimately becomes unable to choose the method of early retirement, such as voluntary retirement, as the means to reduce human resources. In such a case, it is difficult to maintain the employment of the aged in the company, and the employment payment of the aged in the company is deepened, and such disadvantages are eventually transferred to the aged workers such as the Plaintiff, thereby making it difficult to achieve the legislative purpose of the Act on Employment of the Aged. The purpose and purport of the introduction of the wage peak system in this case

In addition, the reason why the disadvantage suffered by the workers of Class 2 or higher, such as the Plaintiff, compared to the workers of Class 3 or lower, is limited to the anti-private effects that the workers of Class 2 or higher have already been guaranteed the retirement age of 60 years, and even if they are not subject to the employment law, they would have been subject to the favorable retirement age regulations. In addition, the introduction of the wage peak system in this case does not have been made for the purpose of discriminating against the workers of Class 2 or higher with the workers of Class 3 or lower, it is difficult to conclude that the result or degree of age discrimination against the workers of Class 2 or higher, such as the Plaintiff, arising from the introduction of the wage peak system in this case, is more than the disadvantage suffered by the workers of Class 3 or lower, solely on the ground that the disadvantage suffered by class 2 or lower, such as

(6) On the other hand, on December 4, 2015, Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 28-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, where the system of reducing wages is implemented after the age of 55 and after the age of 60 or more, a provision that grants subsidies for the reduction of wages to the relevant employee after the date when the system of reducing wages is applied to the relevant employee who is aged 60 or more was established. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s employees of class 2 or higher in the same manner as the Plaintiff was entitled to receive subsidies for the reduction of wages pursuant to the wage wage wage peak system, and the instant operational guidelines provide that the same provision shall apply to the welfare benefits of the person subject to the wage peak system as the general employee, so that there is no disadvantage to the other matters

7. The operation guidelines of this case provide that an employee subject to the wage peak system shall be provided with separate duties, and shall provide assistance in job change, extraction, start-up, and retirement for living after retirement of the employee subject to the wage peak system in preparation for the change of duties, severance, retirement, etc.

(8) No ground to deem that the application period and reduction rate of the wage peak system are excessive in comparison with other public institutions, etc.

C. Sub-committee

Ultimately, since the wage peak system of this case, which was enforced in accordance with the operation guidelines of this case, is also effective to the plaintiff, this part of the plaintiff's assertion on different premise is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claim for holiday work allowances

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even though the Plaintiff worked on Saturdays and Sundays as a member of the National Qualifying Examination Committee in total 17 times from January 2016 to July 11, 2016, the Defendant did not pay holiday work allowance to the Plaintiff only in accordance with the guidelines for payment of expenses incurred in performing national qualification examination projects formulated by himself/herself. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 2,034,476 won (one day holiday work allowance of 302,028 won per day, calculated at 150% as of average 8 hours per day on the basis of the above-mentioned period’s ordinary wage of 25,169, and damages for delay.

B. Determination

1) Each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 21 alone is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff worked on Saturdays and Sundays as a member of the National Qualifying Examination Committee for 17 times from January 2016 to July 11, 2016, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this premise is without merit. 2) Even if the plaintiff worked on Saturdays and Sundays 17 times in total as a member of the National Qualifying Examination Committee for 17 times from January 2016 to July 11, 2016 (7 pages of the application for amendment to the purport of claims as of April 20, 2020), the holiday allowance claim has already expired three years of extinctive prescription of wage claims as of November 27, 2019, the filing date of the instant lawsuit. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion in this regard is without merit.

4. Determination on the claim for any difference arising from the application of the retirement benefits accumulated;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

There is no provision that changes the retirement allowance system from the successful retirement system to the statutory retirement payment system without the consent of the majority of the employees who belong to the defendant. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 54,41,885 won after deducting the retirement allowance paid from the retirement allowance applying the progressive retirement payment system during the continuous service period from January 1, 200 to December 31, 2015, and delay damages.

B. Determination

At the time when the Defendant agreed to abolish the progressive retirement system with the Human Resources Development Union of Korea on December 28, 199 and to introduce the retirement allowance system under the Labor Standards Act, the fact that the aforementioned union members did not reach a majority of the employees belonging to the Defendant subject to the retirement allowance system under the Labor Standards Act is recognized by the Defendant. However, according to the purport of each of the statements and arguments and evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 7 of the above union, the Defendant, along with negotiations with the above union, holds an explanatory meeting for the entire employees belonging to the Defendant, receives written consent from 1,081 among 1,360 workers as of January 17, 200, and obtain the consent of 79.4%, so the provision on the payment of retirement allowances is valid. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the invalidity of the above provision on retirement allowances is without merit.

5. Determination on the claim for business promotion expenses omitted when interim settlement of retirement allowances is made

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff received interim settlement of retirement allowances for the continuous service period from July 1, 1980 to December 31, 199. Since business promotion expenses of 25,662,00 won for each position and position at the time were omitted, the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. Determination

Even if there was an omitted amount in the interim settlement of retirement allowances, the prescription period has already been calculated from December 31, 1999, which was received by the Plaintiff as of November 27, 2019, which was the date of filing the lawsuit in this case, even if there was an omitted amount in the interim settlement of retirement allowances. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

As to this, the plaintiff's assertion that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted or the defendant's debt acceptance (a renunciation of the benefit of prescription), but it is difficult to recognize it by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

6. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kang Gyeong-hee