logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.03.21 2017나5086
퇴직금 등
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the defendant's judgment as to this case, and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

[Supplementary portion] The defendant asserts that even if the payment of the retirement allowance was not effective as the payment of the retirement allowance to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is obligated to return the amount received in return for unjust enrichment to the defendant. Thus, the part exceeding 1/2 of the plaintiff's retirement allowance claim and the above unjust enrichment return claim are set off on an equal amount.

It is reasonable from the perspective of fairness to view that the employer should return the money in the name of the retirement allowance received by the employee to the employer with unjust enrichment, if the validity of the payment of the paid retirement allowance is not recognized, even though the employer actually paid the money in the name of the retirement allowance to the employee.

(2) In light of the legislative intent of the retirement allowance system under the mandatory law, the aforementioned legal doctrine can only be applied on the premise that there exists an agreement on actual division of retirement allowances between the employer and the employee.

Therefore, even though the pertinent agreement entered into between an employer and an employee is merely a determination of the wage, if the employer only takes the form of a retirement allowance installment agreement to evade the payment of retirement allowances, such legal doctrine cannot be applied.

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

arrow