임금
The defendant shall pay 79,067,579 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from December 15, 2019 to the day of complete payment.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant who conducts the business of manufacturing metal processed products with the trade name of "C," and retired from office when providing services, such as the manufacture of kitchen equipment from May 18, 1995 to November 30, 2019. The defendant did not receive wages of KRW 3,780,000 from October 15, 2019 to November 30, 2019. The plaintiff's retirement allowances were 75,287,579, and the plaintiff's retirement allowances were 75,289,57,579 did not dispute between the parties or recognized by considering the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in subparagraph 1.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 79,067,579 (i.e., KRW 3,780,00, KRW 75,287,579) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as provided by the Labor Standards Act from December 15, 2019 to the date of full payment, 14 days after the date of the above retirement.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff does not have any obligation to pay the retirement allowance separately because he agreed to pay the retirement allowance to the plaintiff each month with the retirement allowance included and paid each month in installments.
On the other hand, an agreement on the installment payment of retirement allowances is null and void as it waives a worker's right to claim retirement allowances accrued at the time of the final retirement in advance, and the agreement on the installment payment of retirement allowances asserted by the defendant is invalid as a violation of compulsory law. The agreement on the installment payment of retirement allowances asserted by the defendant is invalid as it appears that the amount claimed by the defendant was paid in installments only when the form of the agreement on installment is taken to evade the payment of retirement allowances because
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da95147 Decided October 11, 2012).
Therefore, the defendant's argument to pay a retirement allowance is without merit.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.