logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.08.13 2015노1626
근로자퇴직급여보장법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The annual salary contract concluded between the defendant, F, and G as to the summary of the grounds for appeal includes retirement allowances, and the above annual salary contract including retirement allowances is deemed to have been demanded by F and G to make interim accounts of retirement allowances.

Furthermore, since the Defendant paid the annual salary that includes retirement allowances to them, the Defendant thought that the payment of retirement allowances should not be made separately, and the F and G also did not object to such annual salary contract before and after retirement or demand the payment of retirement allowances, and there is no reasonable reason to believe that the Defendant did not pay retirement allowances. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was an intentional violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The main text of Article 8(2) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits (hereinafter “Retirement Benefits Act”) provides that “where an employee demands retirement from his/her employer due to reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as housing purchase, etc., he/she may settle and pay retirement allowances for the continuous period of employment.” In full view of the legislative intent of the interim settlement system of retirement benefits and the nature of retirement allowances, etc., where “an interim settlement agreement on retirement allowances” under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Retirement Benefits Act is valid, such agreement should be acknowledged as having been reached according to the employee’s free will, even if the employee does not necessarily need to actively demand interim settlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da41045, Oct. 25, 2012). In addition, the aforementioned legal provision explicitly states “period subject to interim settlement of retirement allowances” as “period of continuous employment,” and also Presidential Decree purchases houses, medical treatment for illness, natural disasters, etc.

arrow