1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1’s written evidence and the entire argument as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is a person operating a manufacturer, such as working clothes, in the trade name of “C,” and the plaintiff was working for the above company from October 14, 2012 to November 25, 2015, and the plaintiff was not paid retirement allowance of KRW 2,630,671 from the defendant even though 14 days have passed since the date of the above retirement.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the above retirement allowance of KRW 2,630,671 and delay damages to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff agreed to pay a certain amount in advance with the monthly wage or daily wage paid by an employer and an employee instead of paying a retirement allowance separately from the Plaintiff. However, if the Defendant agreed to pay a certain amount in advance with the monthly wage or daily wage paid by the employee, the agreement is a waiver of the employee’s right to claim a retirement allowance accrued at the time of the final retirement unless it is acknowledged as the interim settlement of the retirement allowance under the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, and is null and void in violation of Article 8 of the same Act, which is a mandatory law (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Da90760, May 20, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8248, Oct. 13, 2011). The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, the defendant asserts that he had already paid KRW 1,500,000 to the plaintiff.

The facts that the Plaintiff received a separate transfer of KRW 1,500,000 from the Defendant after retirement do not conflict between the parties (see Plaintiff’s preparatory document dated March 31, 2016). The Defendant’s above assertion is with merit.

The plaintiff asserts that he/she has claimed retirement benefits remaining after taking into account the circumstances of receiving KRW 1,500,000 from the defendant, but up to the trial.