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 first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity running Dcheon-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-si, Seocheon-si, and the Defendant served in D from September 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015.

B. After retirement, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff in the Daejeon District Court’s astronomical Branch for the payment of retirement allowances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da4662), and filed a petition with the Daejeon District Employment and Labor Office on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not pay retirement allowances.”

C. On January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 4,590,600 as retirement pay, and KRW 1,409,400 on February 5, 2016, and KRW 1,590,60 on March 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-8 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that when concluding the first employment contract with the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed not to pay retirement allowances when he retires.

In accordance with the contract, the Defendant received 4,700,000 won as retirement allowance, but filed a civil lawsuit and civil petition, alleging that he did not receive retirement allowance after retirement, and received 4,590,600 won as retirement allowance again from the Plaintiff.

The defendant is obligated to return 4,700,000 won received as retirement allowance while in office to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. In the event that the employer of the relevant legal doctrine does not recognize the validity of the payment of the fixed retirement allowance even though the employer actually paid the employee the money in the name of the retirement allowance, and the validity of the payment of the wage under the Labor Standards Act is not recognized, the employer should return to the employer the money in the name of the retirement allowance received by the employee as unjust enrichment, while the employee suffered losses equivalent to the above money by paying the employee the amount in the name of the retirement allowance without any legal ground