1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding “the judgment on the defense prior to the merits of second case” is dismissed as set forth in paragraph (2); and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial at the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the additional determination under paragraph (3).

2. The defendant's judgment as to the main defense of safety at issue was rendered in favor of all of the plaintiff A, B,O, S, U, W, AA, AF, BH, BU, Z, and CF (hereinafter "the plaintiff A et al.") by filing a claim seeking an unpaid interim retirement allowance without specifying a partial claim in the previous lawsuit. Thus, the above plaintiffs' lawsuit seeking an unpaid interim retirement allowance again constitutes an unlawful lawsuit against res judicata of the previous lawsuit.

In the first instance trial, the Defendant also made an objection to the same purport with respect to the rest of the Plaintiffs except the Plaintiff A, but at the first day of pleading of the first instance trial, the Defendant stated that the remainder of the Plaintiffs did not dispute the fact that they did not claim an interim retirement allowance not to be paid at the previous suit, and withdrawn this safety objection.

However, according to the records of the instant case, some of the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs A et al. claimed an interim retirement allowance payable in the previous suit (refer to the plaintiff's written brief dated October 2016). However, since the period for calculating the interim retirement allowance payable to them in the previous suit is different from the period for calculating the interim retirement allowance paid in the previous suit (the defendant does not dispute this in the previous suit), the above part of the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case also does not conflict with the res judicata effect of the previous suit.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 (the evidence number includes numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff A et al. seek the lawsuit of this case.