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

purport, purport, and.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, "2." The defendant's argument "as follows."

The defendant agreed to make an interim settlement of the retirement allowance for 1 year in the immediately preceding year according to the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act and paid the retirement allowance by including it in the monthly salary as the monthly salary is valid. If there is no validity, the plaintiffs made unjust enrichment. Therefore, the defendant asserts that the defendant set off the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiffs as an automatic claim against the plaintiffs in the amount equal to the plaintiffs' retirement allowance claim.

If an employer and an employee agree to pay in advance a certain amount of money as retirement allowance, along with a monthly wage or daily wage paid by the employer and the employee, such agreement is null and void in violation of Article 8 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, unless it is acknowledged as an interim settlement of accounts for retirement allowances under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits.

Meanwhile, it is reasonable from the perspective of fairness to view that an employer should return to the employer the money in the name of the retirement allowance received by the employee as unjust enrichment, if the validity of the payment of the paid retirement allowance is not recognized even though the employer actually paid the money to the employee.

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, employer and user.