부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Basic facts are companies established for the purpose of educational service business, etc. under the trade name of " Quaua Qua Qua Quaki Co., Ltd.". The defendant was employed as an employee of the plaintiff from January 18, 2010 to April 31, 2014. The defendant received retirement allowances of KRW 5,862,292 from the plaintiff on June 13, 2014 after retirement by filing a petition with the Ministry of Employment and Labor with the Busan East Employment and Labor, and the defendant received retirement allowances of KRW 5,862,292 from the plaintiff on June 13, 2014 is not in dispute between the parties, or recognized by considering the whole purport
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. From February 2, 2010 to April 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion provided labor, the Defendant paid the Defendant a retirement allowance of KRW 6,878,640 (=total wage of KRW 89,422,30 ± 13) that is included in the salary according to the retirement allowance installment agreement. Since the above agreement becomes null and void, the Defendant is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
B. (1) If an agreement was made to pay a certain amount of money in advance with the monthly pay or daily pay paid by an employer and an employee (hereinafter “retirement allowance installment agreement”), the 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 benefits 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 in the name of the retirement allowance to the employee.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90760 Decided May 20, 2010). However, the legislative intent of the retirement allowance system is to be defined as mandatory law.