부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. On June 7, 2010, the Defendant asserted that he/she was working as the captain of C, who is managed and operated by the Plaintiff, and retired on March 31, 2016, and thereafter retired on November 26, 2016, but retired on September 19, 2017.
While the Plaintiff paid KRW 17,898,210 in total to the Defendant during the Defendant’s working period as an advance payment for retirement allowances, the Plaintiff demanded the Plaintiff to pay retirement allowances, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,933,330 as retirement allowances to the Defendant.
Therefore, as long as the Defendant received a retirement allowance separately after retirement, 17,898,210 won of the retirement allowance paid in advance during the period of employment is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
2. In light of the fairness, it is reasonable to view that the employee should return to the employer the money in the name of the retirement allowance received by the employee as unjust enrichment, unless the validity of the payment of the paid retirement allowance is recognized as well as the validity of the payment of the paid retirement allowance even though the employer actually paid the employee the money in the name of the retirement allowance.
However, considering the legislative intent of the retirement allowance system as mandatory law, the above legal principle can only be applied on the premise that there is an actual retirement allowance installment agreement between an employer and an employee.
Therefore, even though the pertinent agreement entered into between an employer and an employee is merely a determination of the amount of wages, if the employer took the form of a retirement allowance installment agreement to evade the payment of retirement allowances, such legal doctrine cannot be applied.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da77006 Decided December 13, 2012, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the money in the name of retirement allowance, which is distinguishable from the payment, solely on the basis that the statement of evidence No. 9 was insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the instant case.