beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.04.07 2015나10903

퇴직금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On October 11, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to October 11, 2005 on the condition that the term of the labor contract from October 12, 2004 to October 11, 2005, monthly wage of KRW 1,256,757, retirement allowance of KRW 45,000, and was engaged in driving of large buses.

The Plaintiff was paid KRW 1,256,757 as retirement allowance from October 12, 2004 to October 11, 2005 according to the interim settlement of retirement pay after the termination of the above employment contract.

On November 1, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a regular employment contract with the Defendant again, and was engaged in operating 45 passengers’ large buses from around that time, and retired on April 30, 2014.

[Based on] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 7 through Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 7 and Eul evidence 8, and the purport of the whole arguments and arguments, and the purport of the plaintiff's assertion by the judgment party, as the plaintiff is employed by the defendant from October 12, 2004 to April 30, 2014, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the remaining 2,245,354 won after deducting the amount already received from retirement allowances equivalent to the above number of years of employment.

The Plaintiff received money in the name of the retirement allowance from the Defendant on November 1, 2005, but this was unilaterally paid by the Defendant as the interim settlement of the retirement allowance although the Plaintiff did not demand interim settlement of the retirement allowance, it is invalid as an interim settlement of the retirement allowance.

The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant made interim settlement of the retirement allowance according to the plaintiff's request or the plaintiff's free will. Thus, the period of continuous employment for the calculation of the plaintiff's retirement allowance shall be calculated from November 1, 2005, after the interim settlement of the retirement allowance. The defendant paid the whole amount of retirement allowance corresponding to the above period

Judgment

Article 34(3) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 7379 of Jan. 27, 2005).