The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

E has concluded an annual salary contract with the Defendant based on his own voluntary intent to receive the annual salary including retirement allowances, and received retirement allowances according to the above annual salary contract. On October 29, 2012, E voluntarily requested interim settlement of retirement allowances and received interim settlement. As such, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay retirement allowances to E, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

If an employer and an employee agreed to pay in advance a certain amount of money with a monthly or daily allowance paid by the employer (hereinafter “retirement allowance installment agreement”), the agreement is null and void as it gives up the employee’s right to claim a retirement allowance incurred at the time of final retirement in violation of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, which is a mandatory law, unless it is acknowledged as an interim settlement of the retirement allowance under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and as a result, the employer paid the employee a monetary amount in the name

Even if there is no effect as retirement allowance payment.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90760 Decided May 20, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90760, May 20, 201). In a case where an employer refuses the payment of retirement allowances to a retired employee on the ground of an agreement for division of retirement allowances with no legal effect, it cannot be deemed that there are reasonable grounds for the employer to dispute whether the obligation to pay retirement allowances exists and thus, it cannot be deemed that the employer has not paid retirement allowances. Therefore, it cannot be said that such an employer is not recognized

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4171 Decided August 23, 2007).