"Return the Severance Pay"... Future Savings Bank Employees Lose Case

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that even if employees suffer losses after purchasing company stocks through interim retirement pay settlements and participating in a paid-in capital increase, they cannot reclaim the money if there was no coercion from the company.

On the 27th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Lee Gitaek) announced that it upheld the lower court's ruling, which dismissed the appeal filed by employee A and others of Mirae Savings Bank against the bank's bankruptcy trustee, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, in a retirement pay claim lawsuit.

In September 2011, A and others received interim settlements of their retirement pay and used the funds to participate in a paid-in capital increase implemented by the company to overcome its management crisis.

However, Mirae Savings Bank's financial condition did not improve, and in May 2012, it was ordered to suspend operations by the Financial Services Commission, followed by a bankruptcy declaration in April of the following year. A and others claimed that the interim retirement pay settlement in 2011 was invalid as it was made under pressure and instructions from the company.

However, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation countered, stating that "even if some legal requirements were not met during the interim settlement process, the employees submitted a written pledge stating 'no objections will be raised,' thereby entering into a 'non-litigation agreement,' and thus have no right to claim retirement pay."

The first trial court ruled that the written pledge submitted by A and others was invalid and ordered the bankruptcy trustee to pay the retirement pay. The court pointed out, based on Supreme Court precedents, that the pledge included a waiver of all future rights to be exercised, not rights already exercised, which violated the Employee Retirement Benefit Security Act.

The appellate court ruled in favor of the bankruptcy trustee, stating there was no obligation to pay retirement pay. The court did not accept the claim that the payment for the paid-in capital increase was made under company pressure, noting that many employees who received interim retirement pay settlements did not participate in the capital increase.

A and other employees appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that "there is no error in the lower court's judgment."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.