The judgment below

The part against the plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the interim settlement of retirement allowances under Article 8(2) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits is established upon the worker’s request for interim settlement of retirement allowances for all or part of the continuous employment period, and the employer’s acceptance of interim settlement of the required period. In such a case, a claim for interim settlement of retirement allowances for the period of employment

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the wage discount becomes retroactively effective under an agreement between the labor and management with the intent to increase wages retroactively as of the base date of interim settlement after the establishment of interim settlement of retirement allowances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da20542, Feb. 1, 2008). Therefore, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, such as the intention to make interim settlement of retirement allowances based on the increased wage between the employer and the employee, it cannot be deemed that the legal relationship as to interim settlement of retirement allowances, which has already been established

The lower court determined that the Defendant had already completed the interim settlement of the retirement allowance against the Plaintiffs before there was an agreement between the labor-management and the employees making a decision on the amount of wages, and on the grounds that there are no special circumstances to deem that the Defendant agreed to make an interim settlement of the retirement allowance again on the basis of increased wages between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs, or the National Democratic Union Trade Union of Korea to which the Plaintiffs belong, there is no obligation to pay the difference between the interim settlement retirement allowance and the retirement allowance already paid to the Plaintiffs on the basis of increased wages, and therefore, the lower court was liable to return the amount in the name

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the interim settlement of retirement pay is made.