2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who engages in wholesale and retail business, such as construction machinery maintenance, vehicle maintenance, repair of parts, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is an employee employed by the said workplace.

B. From November 29, 2011, the Defendant entered into an employment contract at the Defendant’s workplace and retired on March 14, 2014.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence No. 1, and the ground for appeal

2. The parties' assertion

A. Upon entering into an employment contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the retirement allowance to be received at the time of his/her retirement in monthly installments, and paid the Defendant a retirement allowance of KRW 186,567 per month in installments, and paid the Defendant a total of KRW 4,577,690 for 837 days from November 29, 201 to March 14, 201.

However, since the above retirement allowance division agreement is null and void, the defendant is obligated to return the above amount received from the plaintiff during the above period of time in accordance with the above agreement.

B. The Defendant received the monthly salary of KRW 2,200,000 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and entered into an employment contract under which the Plaintiff, a business owner, both the remaining amount of the premium and the wage and salary income tax, etc. were to be borne by the Plaintiff, and only received KRW 2,200,000 per month until retirement, and did not themselves enter into a retirement allowance division agreement.

3. The judgment of this court No. 2-1 to No. 4 of this Court is not sufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the division of retirement allowances, unless there is any other objective evidence as a written statement or a factual confirmation of the workers working at the plaintiff's workplace, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(The same is true even if the Plaintiff’s statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6 submitted after the date of closing argument in the trial. Rather, according to Gap evidence No. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2, the Defendant raised a complaint against the Plaintiff.