1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had been employed as a director of a business-affiliated research institute operated by the Defendant from September 15, 2011 to December 10, 2012, and sought payment of the unpaid benefits of KRW 26.4 million out of the total amount of KRW 39 million, including wages, bonuses, retirement allowances, etc. during the said period of labor.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff worked until May 31, 2012, and even if unpaid benefits remain, the extinctive prescription has run from November 1, 2012, which is the final payment date, and it was completed before November 30, 2015, which is the filing date of the instant lawsuit.

First of all, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff's retirement date is December 10, 2012 only with the evidence No. 1 and the plaintiff's retirement date, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in compiling evidence Nos. 5 through 8, Nos. 1, 2, and 6, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff retired from office before November 1, 2012, which the Defendant claimed as the initial date of extinctive prescription.

Therefore, on November 30, 2015, the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on November 30, 2015, which was three years after November 1, 2012, is apparent in the record, and thus, the Plaintiff’s benefit claim expired.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on January 2, 2013 on the grounds of unfair dismissal, but the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the dismissal decision on February 22, 2013 and filed an application for reexamination with the Seoul Central Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Central Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on June 12, 2013. The fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 30, 2015 when six months have elapsed since the said dismissal decision was made is recognized as above.

Even in cases where a worker files an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission pursuant to Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act and contests legal relationship in the administrative litigation thereon, such application constitutes “judicial claim,” which is the ground for the interruption of extinctive prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da20034, Feb. 9, 2012), but the Plaintiff’s application for remedy becomes final and conclusive as a dismissal ruling.