임금등
1. The judgment of the first instance court is modified in accordance with the reduction of the purport of the claim in the trial of the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) as follows.
1. Determination as to the principal lawsuit
A. On September 1, 2012, the Plaintiff served as a member of the “C” operated by the Defendant and retired on May 31, 2014. At the time of the said retirement, the Defendant did not pay KRW 10,395,000 out of the wages from May 31, 2013 to May 2014, and the Defendant paid KRW 4,50,000,000 in total to the Plaintiff from October 31, 2014 to January 31, 2016, the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 4,50,000 in total to the Plaintiff from October 31, 2014 to January 31, 2016 is either a dispute between the parties, or that the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 5, 1, and 5 (including a serial number) and the overall purport of pleadings can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account all the arguments and arguments.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the wages and retirement allowances (=10,395,000 won - 3,866,139 won - 4,500,000 won) and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Labor Standards Act from June 16, 2014 to the date of full payment.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not work in January 2014, and that this is excluded from the period of continuous service in calculating retirement allowances, so there is no obligation to pay retirement allowances to the Plaintiff.
In principle, the period of continuous employment, which serves as the basis for the calculation of retirement allowances, refers to the period of service in which an employee provided his/her labor under the direction and supervision of the employer (from the date of his/her employment to the date when the retirement becomes effective). Even if some of the blank periods exist during the period of his/her employment, if the continuity of the employment relationship is not interrupted, it is reasonable to include such blank periods in the period of continuous employment. According to each of the above evidence, although the Plaintiff did not provide his/her labor to the “C” workplace in January 2014, it can be seen by