logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2021.01.07 2020가단4804
구상금
Text

1. The request is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. From October 7, 2016 to February 13, 2019, the Defendant served as a doctor at the Plaintiff’s hospital.

Until now, the benefits paid by the plaintiff to the defendant are included in retirement allowances.

In this regard, since the defendant separately claims for retirement benefits after retirement, the plaintiff has already filed a claim for return of the amount of 29,929,419 of the retirement benefits already paid to the defendant.

2. Although a person pays money in the name of a retirement allowance separately from a monthly salary or daily allowance under an agreement on the division of a retirement allowance during the continuance of a judgment-based employment relationship, if the agreement on the division of a retirement allowance has no validity as a payment of a retirement allowance, the amount in the name of a retirement allowance already paid pursuant to the above agreement cannot be deemed as constituting “wages paid as compensation for labor.” Therefore, it is reasonable from the perspective of fairness to view that an employer should return money in the name of a retirement allowance received to an employer as unjust profit while an employee suffered losses by paying money in the name of a retirement allowance to an employee without any legal cause.

However, considering the legislative purport of the retirement allowance system stipulated by the compulsory law, the above legal principle is only applied on the premise that there exists a substantive installment agreement between the employer and the employee. Thus, even though the pertinent agreement entered into between the employer and the employee was merely the determination of wages, if the employer took the form of a retirement allowance installment agreement in order to evade the payment of retirement allowances, such legal principle cannot be applied.

In other words, there is an agreement between the employer and the employee that the retirement pay should be included in the monthly pay or daily pay and that the separate retirement pay should not be paid at the time of retirement, and the amount of money in the name of the retirement pay distinct from the wage is specified, and the money in the name of the

arrow