beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 42,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 30, 2017 to May 30, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From February 1985 to September 198, the Defendant served as the secretary of the Plaintiff’s temple for about three years and seven months, from January 1, 1997 to November 1, 199, as C’s standing teacher for about two years and eleven months, and from December 199 to May 2006, as the senior secretary of the Plaintiff’s temple for about six years and six months, respectively. From September 2006 to September 31, 2016, the Defendant again served as the chief secretary of the Plaintiff’s temple for nine years and nine years and nine months, and retired on May 31, 2016.
B. On June 2, 2016, the Defendant, on the first day of February 1985, who started to serve as the secretary of the Plaintiff’s inspection, received retirement allowances of KRW 71,250,000 (i.e., monthly salary of KRW 3,00,000 x 285 x 1/12) calculated on the basis of the assumption that the monthly number of months (in this case, it appears to be a clerical error in the calculation of 273 months, the sum of each of the above service periods) calculated by deeming the total service period as the total service period.
C. Meanwhile, on May 9, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 20,000,000 from D to the deposit account in the Defendant’s name.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 4, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The part related to retirement allowances was already received by the Defendant as the head of the Plaintiff’s inspection’s office from February 1985 to September 198, 198; the full-time teacher from January 1, 1997 to November 1, 199; and the head of the Plaintiff’s inspection office from December 199 to May 2006; however, the Defendant already received KRW 10,368,750 as retirement allowances up to May 206; ② the amount of retirement allowances was calculated on the basis of the average wage on the date of the last retirement, not the average wage at each end of the pertinent period; ③ the period was three years after the expiration of the pertinent period of retirement; ④ the period of service as a full-time teacher from January 1, 1997 to November 1, 199; and ④ the Plaintiff’s inspection did not have any obligation to pay the retirement allowances up to May 10, 2006.