Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

The defendant.

The reasoning of the court's explanation by this court is as follows, 106Da17208 "206Da17208" of the judgment of the court of first instance as "206Da17287", 4 of the judgment of first instance as "the fixed work hours per week are 15 hours workers", and 10 pages "the continuous work period subject to retirement pay" and 10 of the judgment of first instance as "the continuous work period which is 15 hours", 10, 15, 10, and 11, and 15, respectively, and 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, except where the additional decision of paragraph (3) is added. The part to be used shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part of the judgment of first instance as "the fixed work hours per week falls under 15 hours workers" from 4th to 7th 3rd.

Article 4(1) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act provides that “The Defendant is a part-time lecturer and falls under the working hours of the class. The Defendant asserts that the hours of the class are less than 15 hours per week except for the second semester of 2008, which was 15 hours per week.” Article 4(1) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits provides that “An employer shall establish at least one of the retirement benefit scheme to pay wages to retired workers: Provided, That this shall not apply to workers whose continuous working period is less than one year, and workers whose average weekly working hours are less than 15 hours per week, whose average weekly working hours are less than 15 hours per week prior to the date on which the relevant ground for calculation occurred, shall be determined based on whether the prescribed working hours per week are less than 15 hours per week on average of the four weeks prior to the date on which the relevant ground for calculation occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5169, May 13, 2005).