The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An application filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

The main points of the grounds for appeal (de facto mistake) D agreed with the Defendant that he did not receive retirement allowances before retirement, so the Defendant does not have the obligation to pay retirement allowances to D.

(See the statement of the Defendant on the fourth trial date). The judgment of retirement allowance is an amount having the nature of a subsequent wage paid to the retired employee in return for his continuous service for a certain period of time, and the specific claim for retirement allowance arises under the condition that the employment relationship is terminated.

It is invalid because it is against the Labor Standards Act, which is a mandatory law, and the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2018Da21821, 25502 Decided July 12, 2018 (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da21821, 25502). Moreover, in a case where an employer refuses the payment of a retirement allowance to a retired employee on the ground of an agreement not effective under the private law, it cannot be deemed that the employer has a reasonable ground for disputing the existence of the obligation to pay a retirement allowance, and it cannot be said that such an employer has no intention to commit a violation of the obligation to pay

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4171 Decided August 23, 2007). Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant, the employer, who was an employer, agreed that the employee D would not receive retirement benefits prior to retirement.

Even if the Labor Standards Act and the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act are violated and invalid, and thus, the defendant's assertion does not have any obligation to pay retirement allowances. Thus, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, it is recognized that the defendant did not pay retirement allowances to D as stated in the facts charged, and it is recognized that the defendant committed a crime of violating the duty to pay retirement allowances within the due date, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous.