beta
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.06.17 2016가단945

청구이의의소

Text

1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was issued on August 31, 2015 by the Incheon District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court.

Reasons

1. The following facts can be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or a whole purport of the pleading in Gap evidence No. 1.

From June 8, 2011 to February 28, 2015, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company paid KRW 2,452,578 as retirement pay to the Plaintiff on July 20, 2015.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff received a retirement allowance of KRW 2,452,578, as above, even though the Plaintiff received a retirement allowance with the interim settlement of the retirement allowance, and filed an application for a payment order seeking return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the same amount with this court. On August 31, 2015, the Defendant received the payment order (this court 2015 tea299, hereinafter referred to as “the instant payment order”) and this payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

2. The assertion and determination Plaintiff merely received the Plaintiff’s signature in a lump sum against the Plaintiff’s intent despite the absence of the grounds constituting the requirements for interim settlement of retirement allowances in around 2014. Thus, notwithstanding the above request, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is still obligated to pay retirement allowances to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant asserts that the interim settlement of retirement allowances against the Plaintiff is valid.

According to the statements in the Evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 14, and Eul evidence No. 14, it is recognized that the plaintiff prepared a written request for interim settlement of the retirement allowance as of June 8, 201, Jan. 1, 201, 201, Jan. 9, 201, 203, Jan. 1, 2014, and Jan. 1, 2015.

However, each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings are revealed as follows. In other words, in a case where the Plaintiff filed an accusation against C’s representative director on the grounds of the unpaid retirement allowance, C also did not pay the Plaintiff retirement allowance of KRW 2,452,578, and Article 8(2) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act and Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are acknowledged.