임금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant and provided labor to the convenience store (C points) operated by the defendant as a salesperson from September 17, 2015 to January 1, 2018, and that the plaintiff was not paid retirement pay of KRW 3,332,030 from the defendant.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3,32,030 won of retirement allowance and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 16, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the expiration of 14 days from the date of retirement.
2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was as of August 1, 2016, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he would not pay retirement allowances to the Plaintiff, and that he would only work and work until August 31, 2016.
On August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed not to pay retirement allowances to be paid during the period of service of the king and retirement allowances during the future service period, and that they will newly work from September 1, 2016.
Therefore, the instant claim seeking unpaid retirement benefits is unreasonable, since the Plaintiff waived his/her claim for retirement benefits that he/she would not receive retirement benefits at the end of August 2016 and exempted the Defendant from his/her obligation to pay retirement allowances. Even if it is different from the foregoing, the beginning date of the Plaintiff’s service period should be calculated from September 1, 2016, or the Plaintiff’s claim for retirement benefits before September 1, 2016 should be deemed to have waived its claim.
B. First of all, in light of the purport of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, the Defendant’s assertion that the agreement is in violation of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, which aims at guaranteeing the retirement benefits and contributing to the stable livelihood of the workers.