Attorney Lee J-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. Application for voluntary retirement of the plaintiff

From March 2, 1984, the Plaintiff was in office as a teacher at a school operated by Defendant School Foundation B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Corporation”). On April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary retirement through Defendant Corporation around April 2012 of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City (No. 2012-192 announcement of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City), on the plan to implement voluntary retirement of public educational officials at the end of August 2012 (No. 2012-192 announcement of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City), and applied for voluntary retirement through Defendant Corporation.

On April 26, 2012, when applying for voluntary retirement on April 26, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant corporation a written pledge stating that “The details of the entries in the application for the voluntary retirement allowance of teachers are not false, and any more than the entries in the application may be reported in writing to the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City and the Chairperson of the Defendant corporation, and the payment of the voluntary retirement allowance may be suspended, and even after the receipt of the voluntary retirement allowance, the Plaintiff promised to refund the full amount of the voluntary retirement allowance received by any act between the public and private entities before retirement.”

B. Process of selecting persons eligible for honorary retirement allowances of Defendant corporation

On April 24, 2012, the C Middle School established and operated by the Defendant corporation requested the Ulsan-dong Police Station, the competent police station, to inquire about whether the Plaintiff is indicted as a teacher for a criminal case, whether the Plaintiff is disqualified for a misconduct investigation or investigation by an audit agency, such as the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the prosecution, in accordance with the internal regulations of the Office of Education of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City.

In this regard, the chief of the Ulsan-dong Police Station confirmed that there was no ground for disqualification for the plaintiff as the title of "interpellation of the result of inquiry about the grounds for disqualification due to the voluntary retirement of teachers" on 2012, 4, 25.

On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff was selected as a person eligible for subsidies for honorary retirement allowances by the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City, and voluntarily retired on August 31, 2012. On September 2012, the Plaintiff received the amount of KRW 114,880,90 from the Defendant corporation (excluding the amount of income tax withheld from among KRW 118,092,230,000,000,000,000 won) from the Defendant corporation.

(d) Notification of November 26, 2012 of the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City, to revoke the decision to pay and to recover honorary retirement allowances of honorary retirement workers;

(1) On November 19, 2012, the superintendent of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City sent to the defendant corporation an official letter stating that "the plaintiff will cancel and recover the decision to pay the honorary retirement allowances for the voluntary retirement of the voluntary retirement workers at the end of August 2012," and "the prior notification of the cancellation and withdrawal of the decision to pay the honorary retirement allowances for the voluntary retirement workers at the end of August 2012." The chief of the defendant corporation sent to the person at the time the decision to pay the honorary retirement allowances at the end of August 2012, the reason, contents, and legal basis of the disposition "the revocation and recovery of the decision to pay the honorary retirement allowances for the voluntary retirement workers" and the party's opinion by submitting it by November 2

(2) On November 26, 2012, the superintendent of education of Ulsan Metropolitan City notified the defendant corporation of the decision to revoke the decision to pay the honorary retirement allowances and the decision to recover the honorary retirement allowances (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition of this case”) under Article 74-2(3)3 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 3(3)2, 9, 9-2, and 9-4 of the Payment Rules, including the State Public Officials and the honorary retirement allowances, etc., of the fact that the plaintiff was prosecuted for a criminal case during his/her service.

E. Plaintiff’s filing of administrative litigation and its result

On February 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Ulsan District Court 2013Guhap295 against the instant disposition. However, on October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that there was no legal interest in seeking revocation of the instant disposition. While the Plaintiff appealed against it, the Plaintiff appealed, but was dismissed on March 21, 2014, and filed a second appeal, but the said judgment was dismissed on July 24, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

On the other hand, on July 21, 201, the Plaintiff was charged with violation of the Political Funds Act with respect to support payments to D parties to the Ulsan District Court. On August 17, 2011, the Plaintiff was served with a duplicate of indictment on August 17, 201, and on July 15, 2014, the above court was sentenced to a fine of KRW 300,000 (Ulsan District Court 201 High Court 2233) as a violation of the Political Funds Act, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 23, 2014.

G. The provisions of the articles of incorporation relating to the case are as follows.

Article 50-2 (Honorable Retirement Allowances) (1) In case where a teacher who has served for not less than 20 years and retires before his retirement on the basis of the retirement age under Article 43 (6), the honorary retirement allowances may be paid within budgetary limits. (2) All new provisions concerning the payment of allowances, such as whether or not to pay the honorary retirement allowances under paragraph (1), the persons to be paid, the amount to be paid, the payment procedure, etc., shall be governed by the implementation plan

(h) Relevant provisions in an implementation plan for the payment of honorary retirement allowances to teachers of Ulsan Metropolitan City in Ulsan Metropolitan City shall be as follows:

1. The person eligible for voluntary retirement allowances: 1. The person who wishes to be eligible for voluntary retirement allowances for at least 20 years under the Pension Act as of the end of August, 2012; or the person who falls under any of the following as of the starting date of the application period for restriction on eligibility for voluntary retirement allowances shall be excluded from the person eligible for voluntary retirement allowances; 6. Other administrative matters; 2. The person who is prosecuted for a criminal case by the date of voluntary retirement shall be subject to the disposition of revocation of eligibility for voluntary retirement allowances; 1) the person eligible for voluntary retirement allowances shall be subject to the examination by the school foundation which submitted an application as a school juristic person for voluntary retirement allowances at the end of August, 2012 to the Office of Education; 2. The person who is subject to restriction on eligibility requirements for voluntary retirement allowances at the Office of Education at least 1.6. The head of the relevant school shall be excluded from the scheduled date of application for voluntary retirement allowances at least 20 years, and the person who is subject to restriction on eligibility for voluntary retirement allowances at the end of 1.

Whether a person eligible to receive subsidies for honorary retirement allowances is eligible to receive subsidies for honorary retirement allowances (an inquiry into facts of an investigation agency, inquiry of private school pension corporation, etc.) shall be thoroughly confirmed by the relevant corporation. September 9, the superintendent of the Office of Education shall revoke the decision to grant subsidies for honorary retirement allowances in cases where a person determined as eligible to receive honorary retirement allowances falls under any of the following subparagraphs during the period until the date of voluntary retirement, and the allowances already paid shall be recovered pursuant to Article 9-3 of the Regulations on Payment, such as honorary retirement allowances, etc. However, in cases of a corporation in receipt of a written notice of recovery of honorary retirement allowances, the corporation shall pay

【Ground of recognition】 without any dispute, Gap’s evidence of 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence of 7-1 through 8, Eul’s evidence of 1, 2-1 through 3, and 3 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The plaintiff

(1) The instant disposition is deemed to fall under the withdrawal of the beneficial administrative act. The Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City selected the Plaintiff as the person eligible for subsidies for honorary retirement allowances by due process. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received the honorary retirement allowances from the Defendant corporation, and the Plaintiff sent an criminal fact to the Ulsan Dongdong Police Station lawfully in accordance with the internal regulations, but the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was prosecuted by the prosecution, and the Plaintiff applied for voluntary retirement with the belief of the selection of the person eligible for subsidies for honorary retirement allowances to the Plaintiff in the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, and the Plaintiff applied for voluntary retirement. If the Plaintiff was not selected as the person eligible for subsidies for honorary retirement allowances in advance, the Plaintiff would not apply for voluntary retirement, and if the instant recovery disposition is taken place, the Plaintiff would be against the principle of trust protection, and the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City should have confirmed whether it constitutes the subject of restrictions on the payment of honorary retirement allowances pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Rules on the Payment of Voluntary Retirement Allowances, etc., but the instant disposition was unlawful.

(2) In addition, the Plaintiff received honorary retirement allowances due to reasons for which it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s liability. Considering the fact that the recovery of this case is carried out, the Plaintiff’s livelihood is prevented, the instant disposition is unlawful against the principle of proportionality, since the damages suffered by the Plaintiff are considerably larger than the public interest the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City Office of Education intends to achieve the instant disposition.

(3) The disposition to recover the honorary retirement allowances of this case is a disposition that directly limits the citizen's property rights and directly infringes on the citizen's property rights, and thus, the request for clarity is strengthened. However, Article 74-2 (3) 3 of the State Public Officials Act provides that the case where the disposition to recover the honorary retirement allowances of this case is subject to simply "the case where the person who received or is not subject to the payment of the honorary retirement allowances of this case is paid in excess of the honorary retirement allowances of this case", and does not specifically regulate the case where "the case where the person is paid the honorary retirement allowances of this case", but Article 74-2 (4) of the State Public Officials Act provides that the scope of the person subject to the payment of the honorary retirement allowances of this case shall be determined by the Presidential Decree. Thus, the above provision alone goes against the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation.

(4) Even if Article 74-2(3)3 of the State Public Officials Act, which is the basis provision for the instant disposition, does not go against the principle of prohibition of blanket delegation, the said provision does not yet become final and conclusive, and even if the actual sentence is finalized, the possibility of being sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment is extremely rare, it cannot be recovered as it constitutes “other cases where a person who is not subject to voluntary retirement allowances is paid” and thus, it goes against the principle of prohibition of excessive delegation under the Constitution.

(5) Lastly, Article 3(3)2 of the Regulations on Payment of Early Retirement Allowances, etc. excludes persons eligible for voluntary retirement allowances from persons eligible for voluntary retirement allowances by giving negative value judgment to the Defendant itself that they were prosecuted as criminal cases. Thus, this constitutes a disadvantage as an effect of recognition of conviction, and thus contravenes the principle of presumption of innocence.

As above, even though the instant disposition was an unlawful or unfair disposition, the Defendant corporation filed a claim with the Plaintiff to return money due to the instant disposition continuously without dispute at all, and the Plaintiff is in danger and in danger of being in a legal position. Thus, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of debt.

B. Defendant corporation

(1) The instant disposition is legally made in accordance with the relevant statutes, and the Plaintiff received honorary retirement allowances despite being excluded from the recipients pursuant to Article 3(3)2 of the Regulations on Payment of honorary retirement allowances, etc., and the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City notified the Plaintiff of the decision to cancel the decision to pay honorary retirement allowances and to recover the same in accordance with Article 74-2(3) of the State Public Officials Act and Article 9 of the Regulations on Payment of the State Public Officials’ Retirement Allowances, etc. at the latest. Thus, there is no defect or procedural defect

(2) In addition, the issue of whether the Plaintiff was aware of a criminal prosecution is not an important requirement in the application of the relevant laws of this case, and the fact that the Defendant corporation believed the reply of the Ulsan East Police Station and did not have any grounds for disqualification is attributable to the Defendant corporation or the office of education of Ulsan Metropolitan City.

It is difficult to regard it as it.

(3) Furthermore, on April 26, 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she was unaware of having been prosecuted is difficult to believe as it is, and on the other hand, submitted to the Defendant corporation the “Voluntary retirement allowance subsidy”, “application for the honorary retirement allowance of a teacher of a private school”, “a written pledge”, and “a written pledge”. According to the above written pledge, even after the receipt of the honorary retirement allowance, the Plaintiff is obligated to refund the full amount of the honorary retirement allowance that he/she received to the Defendant corporation according to the above written pledge.

(4) Lastly, the Plaintiff is arguing that the instant disposition violates the general principles of law and thus is illegal and unfair. However, the instant disposition is not limited to the Defendant corporation, but is made by the Superintendent of Ulsan Metropolitan City Office of Education, and it is not a position that the Defendant corporation should specifically reflect on it.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to whether the defendant corporation has a right to claim or recover unjust enrichment equivalent to honorary retirement allowances against the plaintiff

(1) Provisions pertaining to honorary retirement allowances under the Private School Act

A) Article 60-3 of the Private School Act provides that, in cases where a private school teacher who has served for at least 20 years voluntarily retires before his/her retirement age, an honorary retirement allowance may be paid within budgetary limits, and the scope and amount of the honorary retirement allowance to be paid, the payment procedure and other necessary matters shall be determined by the articles of incorporation. Article 50-2 of the articles of incorporation of a defendant corporation provides that, in cases where a person who served for at least 20 years voluntarily retires before his/her retirement age, an honorary retirement allowance may be paid within budgetary limits, and all matters concerning the payment of allowances, such as whether to pay honorary retirement allowances, persons eligible for the payment, and payment procedure

B) As seen earlier, Article 6-1 (a) of the Act on the Payment of the Voluntary Retirement in Ulsan Metropolitan City provides that the head of the relevant agency, upon which an application for voluntary retirement was made, shall return the honorary retirement allowance in accordance with the relevant provisions if an applicant for voluntary retirement falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 74-2 (3) of the State Public Officials Act. According to Article 9-1 (a) of the Act on the Support of the Subsidies for the Voluntary Retirement of Private School Teachers at the end of August 2012, the superintendent of education shall revoke the decision to grant the voluntary retirement subsidy in cases where a cause falling under any of the subparagraphs of the requirements for exclusion during the period until the date of voluntary retirement occurs to the person determined as eligible for the voluntary retirement, and the allowances already paid shall be recovered in accordance with Article 9-3 of the Act on the Payment of the Voluntary Retirement Allowances, etc. of the State Public Officials, since the implementation plan for the voluntary retirement of a private and high school teacher implemented by the Office of Education in Ulsan Metropolitan City is subject to the State Public Officials Act.

(2) Relevant provisions 1 of the State Public Officials Act

A) Article 74-2 (4) of the former State Public Officials Act and the Presidential Decree related to the State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 11489, Mar. 23, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) provide that "the scope of persons eligible for the payment of honorary retirement allowances and allowances under paragraph (1), the amount of payment, the procedure for the payment thereof under paragraph (2), and the procedure for the recovery of the amount of honorary retirement allowances under paragraph (3) shall be prescribed by the National Assembly Regulations, the Supreme Court Regulations, the Constitutional Court Regulations, the National Election Commission Regulations, or Presidential Decree." The former provision on the payment of the honorary retirement allowances, etc. (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24425, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "former provision on the payment of voluntary retirement allowances, etc.").

B) The purport of the honorary retirement allowances and the person eligible for the voluntary retirement allowances are the institutions that induce early retirement by paying additional allowances in addition to the retirement allowances under the regulations in cases where a long-term employee retires by a person before his/her retirement age. From the perspective of the employer, the improvement of the efficiency of human resources management by resolving the high age or excess human resources and by strengthening new human resources, and from the standpoint of the employee, a new opportunity, such as transfer, may be provided. The need to induce early retirement by the voluntary retirement system is large when the status and retirement age are guaranteed, such as a public official or a private school teacher. Such voluntary retirement is a labor contract agreement to terminate an employment contract upon the employer’s consent of the employee’s subscription (application). In principle, the area of private autonomy in which the freedom of contract is guaranteed (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 2003Hun-Ma533, Apr. 26, 2007).

Article 74-2 (1) of the former State Public Officials Act provides that "where a person who has served as a public official for at least 20 years voluntarily retires before his/her retirement age, an honorary retirement allowance may be paid within budgetary limits," and Article 74-2 (2) of the former State Public Officials Act provides that "where a person who has served less than 20 years as a public official voluntarily retires before his/her retirement age due to the abolition or abolition of the position system and the prescribed number of personnel, budget reduction, etc., he/she may be paid an allowance within budgetary limits, if he/she voluntarily retires before his/her retirement age." Article 3 (1) of

C) Provisions on revocation of the decision to pay honorary retirement allowances

Article 9 of the Regulations on Payment of Honorable Retirement Allowances, etc. of the Gu shall be determined as a person eligible for honorary retirement allowances.

In the case of a cause falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 3 (3) of the same Act from the application period to the date of voluntary retirement to the date of voluntary retirement, the determination of the person eligible for voluntary retirement allowances shall be revoked without delay. The grounds for revocation shall be widely defined and the period from the application period to the date of voluntary retirement shall be limited to the period from the date of application

D) Article 74-2(3) of the former State Public Officials Act directly provides for the recovery of the honorary retirement allowance under the provision on the recovery of the honorary retirement allowance, considering the fact that the degree of restriction on property rights of the recipient is serious, and Article 74-2(4) of the former State Public Officials Act delegates matters concerning the amount of the honorary retirement allowance and the procedure for the recovery thereof to the Presidential Decree, etc.

E) According to the statement of the procedure for the payment of honorary retirement allowances for teachers at the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City, the "plan for the provision of honorary retirement allowances for teachers at private schools at the end of August 2012", which was publicly announced by the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City, is stipulated in paragraph 7 as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

Examining the above implementation procedures specifically, an educational foundation shall first publicly announce the implementation thereof, and where a teacher who wishes to provide voluntary retirement applies for a school foundation, an educational foundation shall make a provisional decision on whether the relevant teacher is eligible for voluntary retirement after reviewing the eligibility requirements for voluntary retirement, and then make a final decision on whether the relevant teacher is eligible for voluntary retirement; where the office of education of Ulsan Metropolitan City gives notice of a subsidy plan to a school foundation, an educational foundation shall apply for a subsidy to the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, to the relevant school foundation after examining the eligibility requirements for voluntary retirement; and where the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City makes a final decision on subsidization to a school foundation and grants a subsidy, the school foundation shall pay the relevant teacher the voluntary retirement allowance.

(3) Specific determination

A) According to the health team and the basic facts of this case, the Plaintiff was indicted on July 21, 201 to the Ulsan District Court on violation of the Political Funds Act in relation to support payments to D political parties. Thus, at the time of April 26, 2012 when the Plaintiff applied for voluntary retirement, the Plaintiff constitutes a person subject to restrictions on voluntary retirement subsidy since he/she fell under “4. b. 2” at the time of August 26, 2012. However, on April 25, 2012, the Defendant corporation determined that the Plaintiff was the person subject to voluntary retirement allowances who believed that the Plaintiff did not fall under the investigation or investigation into misconduct, and accordingly, the Plaintiff received the voluntary retirement allowances of this case on August 31, 2012, and that the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine on July 30, 2015 as the crime of violating the Political Funds Act.

B) As seen earlier, as prescribed by the articles of incorporation of Defendant corporation, the determination of whether the Defendant corporation has the right to claim the recovery of the honorary retirement allowances against the Plaintiff pursuant to the relevant provisions of the State Public Officials Act. Accordingly, according to Article 74-2(3) of the former State Public Officials Act, where the person who received the honorary retirement allowances pursuant to paragraph (1) of the same Article falls under subparagraphs 1 and 3, the head of the State agency who paid the honorary retirement allowances, and the head of the State agency reappointed in cases falling under subparagraph 2, and the head of the State agency who re-appointed in cases falling under subparagraph 1. Article 74-2(1)1 of the same Act provides that where he/she is sentenced to imprisonment without labor or heavier punishment due to a reason that he/she is in office, subparagraph 2 is reappointed as a career-based public official or in other public officials prescribed by

C) It is clear that the Plaintiff does not fall under the grounds prescribed in Article 74-2 (3) 1 and 2 of the above Act. However, in full view of the following circumstances as to whether the Plaintiff falls under subparagraph 3 of the same paragraph, the purport of and relation to the relevant provisions as seen below, and the following circumstances based on the above fact of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff does not fall under “other cases where the Plaintiff received a person who is not subject to the payment of the honorary retirement allowances” under Article 74-2 (3) 3 of the former State Public Officials Act.

① In interpreting Article 74-2(3)3 of the former State Public Officials Act, “other cases where a person who is not eligible for the payment of honorary retirement allowances receives the payment of honorary retirement allowances”, the interpretation that falls under Article 74-2(3)3 of the former State Public Officials Act if he/she falls under a person excluded from the payment of honorary retirement allowances, etc. under Article 3(3) of the former State Public Officials Act shall be construed as falling under Article 74-2(3)3 of the former State Public Officials Act.

On the other hand, regarding the restitution of honorary retirement allowances, it is against the purport of the former State Public Officials Act which strictly limits the amount of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment due to a reason that he/she is in office. In addition, Article 9-4 of the former State Public Officials Act concerning the restitution of honorary retirement allowances is Article 3(3) of the former Provisions concerning the scope of persons eligible for honorary retirement allowances, and the expanded interpretation of the latter part of Article 74-2(3)3 of the former State Public Officials Act by misunderstanding the relationship between the relevant law and the delegation law, and such interpretation may not be adopted since it would result in serious infringement of the property rights of the persons entitled to receive honorary retirement allowances.

Therefore, Article 74-2 (3) 3 of the former State Public Officials Act refers to the case where a person who has served for not less than 20 years as a public official eligible for the payment of the honorary retirement allowance under Article 74-2 (1) of the same Act does not meet the requirements that he/she would voluntarily retire before retirement age, or where he/she received the honorary retirement allowance even though he/she has a reason corresponding to Article 74-2 (3) 1 and 2 of the same Act.

② Under Article 9 of the former Regulations on Payment of Early Retirement Allowances, the head of a central administrative agency shall revoke the determination of the person eligible for voluntary retirement allowances without delay where a cause falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 3 (3) of the above Regulations occurs during the period from the date of application for the payment of voluntary retirement allowances to the date of voluntary retirement. The revocation of the determination of the person eligible for voluntary retirement allowances is clearly distinguishable from the recovery disposition in which the effect of exclusion only from the person eligible for voluntary retirement allowances arises without termination of employment contract. If it is revealed that the determination of the person eligible for voluntary retirement allowances is subject to a resolution under Article 3 (3) 3 of the above provision, namely, a person who is in need of resolution, a person who is indicted in a criminal case, an audit agency, or an investigative agency, the determination of the person eligible for voluntary retirement allowances shall be strictly

③ The purpose of the honorary retirement allowances system is to induce the retirement of the organization by paying the honorary retirement allowances to the retired teacher before the retirement age as compensation for the loss of income that can be continuously employed or for the payment of expenses to obtain new occupation, etc. The purpose of this system is to induce the retirement before the retirement age, and to promote the believers of the organization by inducing the retirement before the retirement. The significant change in the status of retirement before the retirement age is maintained, and to recover the retirement allowances separately from the monetary compensation, which is the honorary retirement allowances, is the nature of the honorary retirement allowances as remuneration (one kind of retirement allowance) as remuneration (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da42172, Jul. 7, 200; 200Ma1439, Jun. 8, 200) (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da42172, Jul. 7, 200; 200Ma1439, Jun. 8, 200).

(4) In addition, if the defendant corporation confirmed that the plaintiff was excluded from the beneficiary of the honorary retirement allowance by thoroughly examining the eligibility of the beneficiary, and did not determine the plaintiff as the beneficiary of the honorary retirement allowance, it is not reasonable to regard that the plaintiff as the plaintiff would withdraw the application for voluntary retirement, continue to work until the retirement age, or could have filed the application for voluntary retirement again after the judgment of criminal court became final and conclusive, even if considering equity with such case, the plaintiff constitutes "other cases where the plaintiff received a person who is not the beneficiary of the honorary retirement allowance" under Article 74-2 (3) 3 of the former State Public Officials Act.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, since the Plaintiff does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 74-2 (3) of the above Act, the Defendant corporation cannot be deemed to have the right to recover the honorary retirement allowances from the Plaintiff based on the above provision.

B. Determination as to whether the obligation to return the honorary retirement allowance arises pursuant to the "Honorable retirement allowance support" submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant corporation, "application for honorary retirement allowance support for teachers of private schools", and "a pledge"

(1) On April 26, 2012, when the Plaintiff applied for voluntary retirement on April 26, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant corporation a written promise to pay the full amount of the voluntary retirement allowances received by the Defendant to the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City and the Chairperson of the Defendant Corporation by reporting in writing as soon as the details stated in the application are not different from the facts, and even after retirement as well as at the time of retirement, it is possible to suspend the payment of the voluntary retirement allowances by reporting in writing to the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City and the Chairperson of the Defendant Corporation. Moreover, even after receiving the voluntary retirement allowances, it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not indicate any indication in the criminal trial column of the application for the payment of the subsidies to the voluntary retirement allowances to the private school teachers under subparagraph 7.

(2) According to the text of the above written oath, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s failure to display any indication in the column of the criminal trial and thus, offered loans to the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, to have him/her take the instant disposition, and, in fact, the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City, issued the instant disposition against the Defendant corporation and ordered him/her to recover subsidies by taking the instant disposition against the Defendant corporation, and the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the entire amount of the honorary retirement allowances received by the Plaintiff to the Defendant corporation.

However, the above written oath appears to have been drafted to comply with the relevant laws and regulations regarding the payment of honorary retirement allowances, and on the written oath, the phrase "shall be immediately reported in writing to the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City and the President of the defendant corporation, and shall be suspended from the payment of honorary retirement allowances," which imposes an obligation related to the cancellation, etc. of the decision of the person eligible for honorary retirement allowances as stipulated in Article 9 of the former Rules on the Payment of honorary retirement allowances, etc., and even after receiving the honorary retirement allowances, it seems that the state public officials and the honorary retirement allowances, even after receiving the honorary retirement allowances, agree to refund the full amount of the honorary retirement allowances received by an abnormal person due to any act between the public officials and the employees before retirement, are subject to the obligation related to the recovery of the honorary retirement allowances

In addition, it is not reasonable to allow the defendant corporation to receive the subsidy without receiving the restitution disposition from the office of education of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, even though it is not proper to allow the plaintiff to receive the refund of the retirement allowance, in interpreting the above written pledge, it shall be interpreted in consideration of the above provisions of the law.

Therefore, considering the requisition circumstances of the above written oath, and the relationship between the contents of the above written oath and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff is liable for the refund of the honorary retirement allowances pursuant to the above written oath to the Plaintiff merely because the Plaintiff did not make any indication on the column of the criminal trial and provided loan to the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City Office of Education for the instant disposition, and the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Ulsan Metropolitan City intended to recover the subsidy to the Defendant corporation by taking the instant disposition against the Defendant corporation. Therefore, this part of the Defendant corporation’s assertion is without merit. Determination as to whether the Defendant corporation’s ground for disqualification was attributable to the Plaintiff to believe the reply of

(1) Article 7 (2) of the former Regulations on the Payment of Honorary Retirement Allowances, etc. provides that "the head of a central administrative agency shall confirm whether a person eligible for voluntary retirement allowances falls under the scope of restriction on payment and the continuous service period under Article 3 (3) in the Board of Audit and Inspection, the Public Prosecutor's Office, the National Police Agency, and the Public Officials' Pension Service before determining the person eligible for voluntary retirement allowances pursuant to paragraph (1)." The head of a central administrative agency imposes an obligation on the head of a central administrative agency to verify whether a person eligible for restriction on payment falls under the scope of restriction on payment.

(2) However, the defendant corporation should inquire the prosecutor's office, the National Police Agency, etc. in accordance with the above provision to verify whether the plaintiff is an ineligible person for honorary retirement allowances, but by making an inquiry into the police officer of Ulsan-dong Police Agency only, thereby resulting in the failure to receive any investigation data reply from the prosecutor directly. Thus, the defendant corporation's belief on the response of the police station of Ulsan-dong Police Station and judged that the plaintiff did not have any grounds for disqualification, shall be deemed to be responsible for the defendant corporation.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 74-2 (3) of the above Act, and the statement of the above written oath, etc. alone is insufficient to deem that the plaintiff is obligated to return the honorary retirement allowance to the defendant corporation. Therefore, there is no obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the honorary retirement allowance of 118,093,000 won that the plaintiff received from the defendant corporation, and there is a legal interest to seek confirmation because the defendant corporation disputes the existence of the obligation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Jae-won

Judges Kim Jae-sung

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.