1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, the defendant is a company employing 12 full-time workers at the place of business located in Gwangju City, engaging in the business of manufacturing edible wood products. The plaintiff is employed by the defendant company since before May 10, 2012, engaging in the business of manufacturing edible wood products at the above place of business, and retired on March 6, 2015, and the plaintiff's continuous period of continuous employment from May 10, 2012 to March 6, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "retirement allowance"). The plaintiff's retirement allowance calculated based on the plaintiff's continuous period of continuous employment is 12,723,290 won (hereinafter referred to as "instant retirement allowance").

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the retirement allowance of this case to the plaintiff 12,723,290 won and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

The defendant's assertion on the defendant's assertion on the calculation of excessive retirement allowances as to the defendant's defense, etc. argues that the part of the plaintiff's claim exceeding 8,223,790 won, which is the amount calculated from March 2013 to March 6, 2015, exceeds 8,223,790 won, among the plaintiff's claim, is groundless.

Even if a daily worker is a day-to-day worker, if the worker continues to be a day-to-day worker without suspending the day-to-day relationship, it shall be deemed a regular worker, and the employer shall calculate the day-to-day relationship in accordance with the rules of employment and the rules of remuneration by the number of consecutive years of work, and pay the corresponding retirement allowance. It does not necessarily mean that the full-time, continuous, and subordinate nature of the worker should be recognized only when the worker has worked

(Supreme Court Decision 2000Da27671 Decided July 26, 2002). In full view of the health class, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 6 in the instant case, the Defendant’s overall purport of the pleadings is as follows.