1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting payment of a lump-sum refund to the Plaintiff on September 10, 2012 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a B-based insured person, joined the National Pension Scheme from July 2004 to October 2006, and paid 3,682,800 won in total.

B. Around September 2006, employees employed by the Defendant directed the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff would be 60 years of age as of October 14, 2006 and would be able to receive a lump-sum refund, but the Plaintiff would receive a lump-sum refund or continue to join a lump-sum refund,” and the Plaintiff did not subscribe to the National Pension Scheme any longer.

C. On September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff claimed payment of a lump-sum refund to the Defendant, but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on the same day that “The extinctive prescription period has expired five years after October 14, 2006, which is the date on which the entitlement to a lump-sum refund was created.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] Gap’s 1, 4, and Eul’s 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Even if the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s entitlement to a lump-sum refund expired, the Defendant’s refusal to pay a lump-sum refund upon the expiration of the extinctive prescription is not permissible in light of the good faith principle. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. The exercise of the obligor’s right of defense based on the statute of limitations is also governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principles of our civil law. As such, the obligor acted to make it impossible or considerably difficult for the obligee to exercise the obligee’s right or the interruption of prescription prior to the completion of the statute of limitations, or to believe that such measures are unnecessary, or there was an objective obstacle that the obligee was unable to exercise the right, or the obligor did not invoke the statute of limitations after the completion of the statute of limitations.