2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation that establishes and operates A University in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Defendant is a person who voluntarily retires while working as the chief secretary of the Plaintiff’s office.

B. On April 29, 2013, the Defendant applied for voluntary retirement to the president of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff issued a disposition of voluntary retirement on April 30, 2013. At the time of the Defendant’s application for voluntary retirement, the amount of monthly salary of the Defendant was KRW 3,357,00, and the remaining number of months after the retirement age was 106 months. However, on May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 241,704,000 (i.e., the above KRW 3,357,000) to the Defendant pursuant to the Rules on the Payment of Honorary Retirement Allowances (Evidence 1-3) to the Defendant on May 2, 2013.

D. From November 25, 2013 to December 9, 2013, the Ministry of Education audited Plaintiff and A University’s accounting division. The Plaintiff’s honorary retirement allowances to be paid to the Defendant are KRW 100,710,000 (=the above KRW 3,357,000 X 60 x 50 x 50%) pursuant to the “Rules on the Payment of Voluntary Retirement Allowances from School Foundation (Evidence A-2),” and notified the Plaintiff of the audit result to recover the excess honorary retirement allowances paid on the ground that the excess amount was paid.

E. The articles of incorporation and provisions of the Plaintiff relating to the instant case are as follows.

[Articles of incorporation (Honorary Retirement Allowance) (1) In case where a person who has served for not less than 20 years as an employee of this corporation, an employee of each school, and an employee of each level of school wants to retire voluntarily before the date of retirement, honorary retirement allowances may be paid within budgetary limits.

(2) The scope and amount of honorary retirement allowances under paragraph (1), procedures for payment, and other necessary matters shall be separately determined.

(5) The provisions of the National University shall apply mutatis mutandis to matters concerning the service and remuneration of corporate clerical staff.

【Rules on Payment of Early Retirement Allowances to School Foundation】

The purpose of Article 1 (Purpose) is to prescribe detailed matters concerning the payment of honorary retirement allowances to corporation employees, school faculty members of various levels, and technical staff members pursuant to the provisions of Article 50-3 of the Articles of Incorporation.

Article 3 (Payment) The amount of allowances shall be one-half of the amount calculated by multiplying the monthly salary (Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Regulations on Remuneration) at the time of retirement of a person eligible for payment by the number of remaining months after the retirement age, but the period shall not exceed 60 months: Provided, That the provisions on the payment of honorary retirement allowances for State public officials and the special provisions on the payment of honorary retirement allowances for

(Enforcement Date) The provisions of this Amendment shall enter into force on January 6, 2010.

2. (Transitional Measures) With respect to university faculty members, this provision does not apply from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 201, but the provision on voluntary retirement and payment of allowances to universities shall apply.

【Rules on Honorable Retirement and Payment of Allowances (amended by December 6, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply)

The purpose of Article 1 (Purpose) is to prescribe detailed matters concerning the selection of honorary retirees and the payment of honorary retirement allowances of full-time teachers and general employees of A University (hereinafter referred to as "school employees") in accordance with the "Regulations for the Payment of Voluntary Retirement Allowances at A University".

Article 4 (Payment of Allowances) (1) The amount of allowances shall be paid to the teachers and staff determined to receive voluntary retirement, and the amount of allowances shall be 120% of the amount of monthly salary (Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Remuneration Regulations) at the time of retirement of the person eligible for retirement multiplied by the remaining number of months of retirement age, and the period shall not exceed

The provisions of this Amendment ( November 23, 2009) shall enter into force for a limited period from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 201. (1) The provisions of this Amendment (Enforcement Date) shall enter into force for a limited period from October 1, 2009 to September 20, 201. (1) The provisions of this Amendment shall enter into force for a period from October 1, 201 to September 30, 201.

(Transitional Measures) At the same time, the "Rules on Payment of Early Retirement Allowances to School Foundation A" shall not apply to university faculty members.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 5, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The honorary retirement allowances to be paid to the Plaintiff to the Defendant is KRW 100,710,00 (and monthly salary 3,357,000 x 60 months x 1/2) pursuant to Article 3 of the "Rules on the Payment of the Early Retirement Allowances of the School Foundation A". However, in fact, in excess of the retirement age limit x 60 months x 1/2, the Defendant has paid KRW 241,704,000 (=the above 241,704,700 - the above 100,710,000) without any legal ground. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above 140,94,000 and delay damages therefrom.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) In light of the articles of incorporation, the intent of the provision on the organization of the Plaintiff, the provision on voluntary retirement and payment of allowances, and Article 89(5) of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation, the basic provision on the Defendant’s voluntary retirement allowances is “the provision on pre-sale retirement

2) The Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 241,704,00 to the Defendant as an honorary retirement allowance is not merely due to a mistake in calculation or mistake in the relevant application regulations, but is based on the Plaintiff’s intent and is consistent with the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have acquired it without any legal ground.

3) Even if the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff in excess of the statutory basis for the Defendant’s voluntary retirement allowances by erroneous interpretation, the above interpretation of the Plaintiff is invalid only within the Plaintiff’s internal part, and still remains effective in relation to the Defendant, and ② the Plaintiff applied the provision on voluntary retirement and payment of allowances at the time of the payment of voluntary retirement allowances to the corporate employee D around March 2012, as well as the public opinion that the Defendant applied the provision on voluntary retirement and payment of allowances to the Defendant in the process of handling the voluntary retirement of the Defendant, and the Defendant applied for voluntary retirement by trust, and thus, the Defendant’s trust should be protected.

3. Determination

A. The defendant's ground for honorary retirement allowances

As seen earlier, Article 50-3(1) of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation provides that an employee of a corporation, a faculty member of a school at each level, and a staff member of a school at each level may be paid an honorary retirement allowance in certain cases. Paragraph (2) of Article 50 provides that the details of the honorary retirement allowance shall be separately determined; Article 50-3(2) provides that an employee of a corporation and a staff member of a school at each level shall be paid an employee at each level upon delegation from Article 50-3(2) of the above articles of incorporation; Article 50-2 of the Addenda provides that an employee shall be paid an employee of a university at each level; Article 50-3(2) provides that an employee of a university at each level shall be subject to temporary separate provision, i.e., the Rules on the Payment of Voluntary Retirement and Allowances; Article 50-3(2) provides that an employee of a university at each of the above educational foundation shall be paid an employee at each of the articles of incorporation and Article 50-3(2) of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation.

Although the defendant asserts that Article 89 (5) of the articles of incorporation shall apply mutatis mutandis to the defendant pursuant to Article 89 (5) of the articles of incorporation, even though Article 89 (5) of the articles of incorporation provides that "the provisions of the university concerning the service and remuneration of corporate clerical staff shall apply mutatis mutandis, this is merely a provision that applies mutatis mutandis to the general service and remuneration. Therefore, in light of the fact that "voluntary retirement" and "the provisions concerning the payment of allowances" were enacted for the purpose of applying only to the university faculty members, it cannot be deemed that "the provision concerning the voluntary retirement and payment of allowances" apply mutatis mutandis to the defendant who is a corporate employee.

B. The occurrence and scope of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

1) According to Article 3 of the "Rules on the Payment of Early Retirement Allowances at School Foundation A", the honorary retirement allowances that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant is KRW 100,710,00 (i.e., monthly salary of KRW 3,357,000, X 1/2 for the remaining month retirement age of KRW 60). As seen earlier, the Defendant received KRW 241,704,000 exceeding that of May 2, 2013, and as such, the Defendant ultimately received KRW 140,94,000 without any legal cause (i.e., the above KRW 241,704,000 (=the above KRW 100,710,000). Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount.

2) The defendant asserted that the plaintiff paid the above excess amount of KRW 140,94,00 to the defendant, and that the plaintiff paid it to the defendant with the knowledge that he did not have an obligation to pay the above excess amount at the time of the payment of honorary retirement allowances. However, there is no evidence to prove the defendant's above assertion, and the defendant'

3) The Defendant asserted that such interpretation is still valid in relation to the Defendant even if there exists a mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pay the above excess amount, or even if the Plaintiff erroneously interpreted the relevant provisions, however, barring such circumstances as the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the honorary retirement allowances in excess of the amount stipulated in the Plaintiff’s internal regulations, the Defendant’s right to claim the payment of the honorary retirement allowances according to the Defendant’s voluntary retirement may be exercised within the limit of the amount stipulated in the Plaintiff’s internal regulations, and it is consistent with the empirical rule that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the payment of the employment contract or the honorary retirement allowances included

4) The defendant asserts that the defendant's past practices and public opinion expression should be protected. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff paid honorary retirement allowances to other employees of the non-indicted corporation by applying "the Rules on the Payment of Honorary Retirement and Allowances", and even if there are such cases of payment, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff expressed his opinion to pay honorary retirement allowances in excess of the reasonable amount under the Rules on the Payment of Voluntary Retirement Allowances, and in full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 2-2 and the whole arguments, the fact that the plaintiff's corporate secretary-general Eul applied for voluntary retirement as a result of the audit by the Ministry of Education revealed that the plaintiff's corporate secretary-general Eul embezzled the amount of 26 million won for profit-making enterprises through the defendant. Thus, even if the plaintiff notified the defendant of the payment of the honorary retirement allowances to the defendant by applying the provisions on the voluntary retirement allowances, in light of the defendant's above circumstance of application for voluntary retirement, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 140,94,000 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 3, 2013, the following day after the Defendant received the honorary retirement allowances, to the Defendant’s defense against the existence or absence of the obligation to pay, until August 26, 2014, which is the date of the adjudication of this case, and the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Il-il

Judges Lee Jin-jin