부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “a dismissal portion,” and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. The dismissal of the part in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows with the third-party first to 20.
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff paid the retirement allowance by dividing it in accordance with the agreement entered into with the Defendants and included it in the monthly wage. Since then, the Defendants paid the instant agreed amount in lieu of the retirement allowance to the Defendants and eventually received the retirement allowance twice, and the retirement allowance received by the Defendants included in the monthly wage constitutes unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff.
Therefore, Defendant D’s claim for return of KRW 7,323,698 of the retirement allowance received from the Plaintiff, and Defendant B’s claim for return of KRW 6,50,000,000, which is the amount equivalent to the agreed amount, out of KRW 17,423,052 of the retirement allowance received from the Plaintiff, and KRW 7,307,685, which is the amount equivalent to the agreed amount, out of KRW 7,307,685, which was received from the Plaintiff.
B. Since the Defendants were to retire at the same time with bad faith and inflict damages on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate for the additional labor cost of KRW 12,000,000 required for employing a daily-paid worker up to the employment of a new employee on behalf of the Defendants.
C. Defendant D has a duty to compensate for damages of KRW 3,465,00 of vehicle repair cost and 5,500,000 of the leave fee, as it destroyed or damaged a rash vehicle owned by the Plaintiff on July 1, 2015 and January 2016.
3. Determination
A. If an employer to whom the Defendants received payment of retirement allowances in installments from an employee as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment does not recognize the validity of the payment of retirement allowances in advance even though the employer actually paid money in the name of the retirement allowances, and the validity of the payment of wages is not recognized, the employee’s unjust enrichment of the amount received