부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts without dispute;
A. From April 2, 2007, the Defendant retired on July 31, 2017 while serving in the Plaintiff Company. During the above working period, the Defendant received 2.5 million won per month from the Plaintiff.
B. On September 12, 2017, the Plaintiff paid 13,762,655 won of retirement allowances calculated for the period from December 1, 2010 to July 31, 2017 to the Defendant on the recommendation of the Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office.
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On April 2, 2007, the Plaintiff concluded an installment payment agreement with the Defendant on the part of April 2, 2007, paid the so-called four major premiums such as health insurance premiums to be borne by the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, and paid all retirement allowances by means of supporting the Defendant’s oil payment, and paying life-saving bonuses to the Defendant.
As can be seen, the Defendant received a retirement allowance again after receiving the retirement allowance from the Plaintiff in substance. If so, during the period from December 1, 2010 to July 31, 2017, the Defendant’s above 4th insurance premium of KRW 19,337,60, oil price of KRW 15,51,047, and KRW 9,500,00 for life saving bonus of KRW 4th insurance premium of KRW 19,337,60, and KRW 15,550,00 for the period from July 31, 2017.
B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to find out that the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to receive the payment of retirement allowances in installments, or that the Defendant received a certain amount of monthly payment from the Plaintiff as retirement allowances, and there is no other evidence to find otherwise.
Therefore, it is difficult to view the above 4th insurance premium, oil price, and life-saving bonus that the Defendant provided or received from the Plaintiff as substitute for retirement allowance, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the Defendant received each of the above money from the Plaintiff without any legal ground. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment does not need to further examine the remainder.