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. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the Defendant with an annual salary of KRW 32.4 million, and the Defendant retired on August 30, 2017.

B. After retirement, the Defendant filed a petition on the ground that the Plaintiff’s representative C did not pay retirement allowances to the Dong site of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,492,465 as retirement allowances to the Defendant according to the corrective order of the Dong site of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion made an agreement with the defendant that included retirement allowances in the annual salary at the time of entering into an employment contract with the defendant, and paid 5,492,465 won as retirement allowances to the defendant as monthly salary. Since the defendant received two retirement allowances, the amount equivalent to the above amount should be refunded to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, which can be known by adding the purport of the argument to the entire arguments, namely, the labor contract submitted by the plaintiff, which states that the plaintiff and the defendant should be paid with retirement allowances, but the seal of the plaintiff and the defendant is not affixed to the above handwritten employment contract, and the defendant asserted that there is no signature and personal information of the defendant, and the written employment contract taken by the defendant at the time was the state where only the defendant stated the defendant's signature and personal information, the above written employment contract contains the contents that "retirement allowance: 1/12 of the annual salary," and the statement that "in the case of a worker for more than one year, a retirement allowance is paid based on his intention," and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a separate retirement allowance agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the basis of each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 11.

Therefore, it is true.