All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Determination as to part of the grounds of appeal Nos. 3, 4, and 5 (related to the validity of the interim settlement of this case)

A. Article 8(2) of the former Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act (amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter “former Retirement Benefits Act”) provides that “An employer may, upon a worker’s request, settle accounts and pay of retirement allowances for the period in which the worker continued to work before his/her retirement.”

In full view of the legislative intent of the retirement allowance system and the nature of the retirement allowance, etc., if an agreement on interim settlement of the retirement allowance is reached according to the free will of an individual worker, the interim settlement of the retirement allowance is not valid only when an employee actively demands interim settlement of the retirement allowance.

(Supreme Court Decision 2003Da48891 Decided December 26, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da41045 Decided October 25, 2012). (B)

The court below held that, in light of the circumstances where both interim retirement allowances in this case were remitted directly to the accounts in the name of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs were held for 9 to 20 days until they were transferred to the accounts in the name of the plaintiffs, and there was no sanction or interference from the stock company A (hereinafter "A") in the process, the court below held that although they were made a request by A, the plaintiffs were paid retirement allowances in the interim settlement of retirement allowances in accordance with their own intent or decision, and whether they were in possession of the retirement allowances, they were paid the total or part of the retirement allowances as the capital increase price, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs' valid consent was not satisfied in the interim settlement in this case.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower judgment is so determined.