부당이득금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs a service business, such as cleaning services, and the Defendant is a person who served as B in Daegu-do English Village located in Gyeongbuk-gun, Daegu-do, where the Plaintiff performed cleaning services from January 1, 2012, and retired on December 31, 2012.
B. The Defendant received monthly wage of KRW 2,800,000 from the Plaintiff during the pertinent period of work, and received KRW 2,101,50 as retirement allowance, in total, KRW 1,406,590 on January 14, 2013, and KRW 694,910 on March 8, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not deduct the Defendant’s earned income tax and local income tax that should be deducted by withholding while paying wages to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant, without any legal cause, obtained profits equivalent to the total amount of 568,590 won, such as earned income tax, etc. paid by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the aforementioned unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that: (a) the Defendant agreed to pay earned income tax, etc. to the Plaintiff; and (b) the Defendant agreed to receive KRW 2,80,000 per month from the actual receipt amount; (c) even if the Defendant should bear the earned income tax, etc., the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment return claim
B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Defendant’s monthly salary (amount received) was fixed to KRW 2,800,000,000, while the Defendant’s annual salary (tax prior to the Plaintiff’s annual salary) reported to the National Tax Service was merely KRW 30,000,000, the Defendant would be entitled to KRW 2,800,000 from the Plaintiff, and it appears that the Defendant would have borne the Plaintiff’s monthly salary income tax.