부당이득금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. Under the relevant legal doctrine, wages are all money that an employer pays to an employee in compensation for his/her work, and mean that the employer continuously and regularly pays to an employee in compensation for his/her work, and the employer bears the obligation to pay the wages in accordance with collective agreements, rules of employment
However, it is reasonable to view that an employer should return to the employer the nominal amount of retirement allowances received by the employee as unjust enrichment, inasmuch as the payment of retirement allowances under the above agreement is null and void as the agreement on the division of retirement allowances is null and void, the amount in the name of retirement allowances already paid under the above agreement does not constitute “wages paid for the payment of retirement allowances.” Therefore, it is reasonable to view that an employer should return the nominal amount of retirement allowances received by the employee as unjust enrichment (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90760, May 20, 2010). However, in light of the legislative intent of the mandatory law, the above legal principle is applicable only on the premise that there exists a substantial division agreement between the employer and the employee, which is merely the substance of the agreement concluded by the employer, to evade the payment of the retirement allowances agreement even if the employer prescribed the actual amount of the retirement allowances.
In other words, between an employer and an employee.