1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is that the reasoning for this Court’s judgment is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court concerning the cause of the claim is stated by the second part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The defendant asserts that the defendant's claim for extinctive prescription has expired due to the expiration of extinctive prescription.

However, according to Article 10 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, the extinctive prescription period of the retirement allowance of this case is three years, and according to the above basic facts, the payment period of the retirement allowance of this case is December 31, 2008, which is the expiration date of the plaintiff's service, and it is evident that the lawsuit of this case was filed on August 21, 2014, which was three years after the expiration date of the lawsuit of this case. However, in full view of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 and 7 and No. 2, the defendant requested the plaintiff to agree to pay the retirement allowance of this case over three years from March 24, 2010 to 2014, and the plaintiff's consent is recognized. According to the above recognition, the defendant's request that the plaintiff request the plaintiff to postpone the payment period of the retirement allowance of this case as above constitutes approval as a ground for suspending the extinctive prescription period, and thus, the period of the retirement allowance of this case was suspended and resumed.

However, since the fact that the lawsuit of this case was filed within three years from the time when the lawsuit of this case was postponed is apparent, the defendant's above assertion of extinctive prescription is without merit.

In regard to this, the defendant expressed his/her intention to postpone the above period of repayment is that the defendant would repay the retirement allowance in this case from 2012 to 2014 on the condition that the rehabilitation procedure for the defendant is in progress, and on April 8, 2010.