1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The judgment C on the cause of the claim was employed by the Defendant on March 24, 2003 and went back on October 13, 2017. The Defendant unpaid retirement allowance of KRW 97,052,083 to C; the Plaintiff received a legacy from C; and C (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on February 19, 2018 may be recognized as either a dispute between the parties or by the purport of the entire pleadings.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the donee KRW 97,052,083 and delay damages to the plaintiff, who is the donee, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. The summary of the defense was that the Defendant subscribed to the defined benefit type retirement pension under the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act for the Deceased and paid the amount from that time to that time before the Deceased’s retirement. As such, the Plaintiff could immediately receive the retirement pension from the retirement pension trustee upon submitting the deceased’s basic certificate

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights.

B. On the other hand, even if the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, joined the defined benefit retirement pension and the Plaintiff was able to receive the deceased’s retirement pension from the retirement pension trustee, the Plaintiff’s claim had already been achieved unless the Plaintiff received the retirement pension at the time of the instant lawsuit.

or the benefit of protection of rights has not been extinguished.

Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The summary of the defense was that the defendant subscribed to the defined benefit retirement pension on behalf of the deceased and paid the charges from that time to that time before the deceased retires, and the plaintiff received the retirement pension from the retirement pension trustee in full.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

B. According to the reasoning of the court below's judgment, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant's judgment on Nov. 1, 2009.