2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Defendant, who is an individual entrepreneur operating a selective sales agency under the trade name of “C”, employed the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff provided labor from April 15, 2013 to September 13, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff provided labor as above and retired, and the Defendant did not receive retirement allowances of KRW 3,464,110 for the above service period.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid retirement allowance of KRW 3,464,110 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under Article 37(1) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act from September 28, 2014 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the lapse of 14 days from September 13, 2014 where the ground for payment of retirement allowances occurred, as the retirement allowance payment date of the Plaintiff.

B. On March 26, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of dismissal as text messages and re-entered on April 2, 2014 that the Plaintiff did not work. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s continuous work period did not exceed one year, and that the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay retirement allowances to the Plaintiff.

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 4-1 and 2, it is recognized that the Defendant sent a text message to the Plaintiff on March 26, 2014, stating that “the Defendant shall not attend school from the date” and that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the amount calculated by deducting KRW 483,871 equivalent to the amount of wages for six days out of the amount of wages for March 2014.

However, in light of the following circumstances, comprehensively considering the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2-3 through 7 and the entire arguments, each of the above facts and evidence Nos. 1, 3-1 and 2 was dismissed on March 26, 2014 by the plaintiff at the workplace operated by the defendant.

Since it cannot be seen as having voluntarily retired, it goes on the opposite premise.